Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 1 minute ago, Captain... said: And they aren't fully employed and some are having to claim benefits. The point about zero hours contracts is that they are skewing the employment figures, not that they are a good or bad thing. I don't believe that they significantly are, which is why I'm asking for stats. The tone has also changed somewhat.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 I guess I'm just really, really unlucky because I've only ever known a zero hours contract to be tool for managerial twattery and an excuse for business owners to fall back on the whole 'the company isn't earning enough to give everyone the hours they need right now' argument to justify running a skeleton crew of underpaid staff (just ignore the improved custom recently and the execs buying new cars and new houses). But of course some members of this board have decent jobs where they've never had to deal with job insecurity and abusive managers so the problems of unregulated capitalism can't possibly exist.
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 4 minutes ago, Charl91 said: Yeah, companies like Uber are shocking to work for, but regular 0 hour contracts can be awful too. For me, it was things like Being expected to take my mandatory (also unpaid) lunch break for the first hour of my nine-hour shift. Arriving on time for my shift and being asked not to "clock in" because it was quite quiet, so I wouldn't be needed just yet. Being asked to work one and a half hour shifts (bare in mind that it was minimum wage and I had to travel 25 minutes each way on the bus - so that 90 minute shift took 3 hours of my time, and earned me a net profit of about £5) Being told that I'd be needed to stay for a few extra hours, even though the buses didn't run that late, so I'd have to get someone to pick me up or walk. Of course, I could complain, or say no. But then funnily enough, my hours would be cut drastically the next week. I needed the money for rent desperately, so I was over a barrel, pretty much. Luckily, I found a new, much better job a few months later. 0 hour contracts can work, but they are easily open to abuse if your manager is a tosser. Fair enough, that does sound crap. Can you name and shame, I think companies that treat employees like shit should be boycotted. Ive had some shocking abuses of full time employment, when I worked for Fujitsu on the virgin media network the way they treated employees was horrific. It wouldn't have been out of place on panarama or despaches. It annoys me though that zero hour contracts are being thrown around as a negative, when in fact they can be the exact opposite. My wife couldn't do the job she does on a full time staff nursing contract, she would have to work on a rota and do night shifts. This is much more flexible and works well and she provides the NHS with necessary assistance in areas they are short. She still accrues holiday, pays pension but doesn't get sick pay. She still gets offered training but doesn't get paid for training. The bits you lose can sometimes be outweighed by the bits you gain.
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I guess I'm just really, really unlucky because I've only ever known a zero hours contract to be tool for managerial twattery and an excuse for business owners to fall back on the whole 'the company isn't earning enough to give everyone the hours they need right now' argument to justify running a skeleton crew of underpaid staff (just ignore the improved custom recently and the execs buying new cars and new houses). But of course some members of this board have decent jobs where they've never had to deal with job insecurity and abusive managers so the problems of unregulated capitalism can't possibly exist. That's not what I am saying Carl, I'm asking for the stats to be reflective of the situation. Something you and others have asked of different things in the past. The examples I'm giving are from the NHS the countries biggest employers, so I would guess they also hold a big percentage of that market too.
Charl91 Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Fair enough, that does sound crap. Can you name and shame, I think companies that treat employees like shit should be boycotted. Ive had some shocking abuses of full time employment, when I worked for Fujitsu on the virgin media network the way they treated employees was horrific. It wouldn't have been out of place on panarama or despaches. It annoys me though that zero hour contracts are being thrown around as a negative, when in fact they can be the exact opposite. My wife couldn't do the job she does on a full time staff nursing contract, she would have to work on a rota and do night shifts. This is much more flexible and works well and she provides the NHS with necessary assistance in areas they are short. She still accrues holiday, pays pension but doesn't get sick pay. She still gets offered training but doesn't get paid for training. The bits you lose can sometimes be outweighed by the bits you gain. It was a Fayre and Square "restaurant" (I use the term loosely) in Stoke. Refuse to eat at one since. But yes, I don't think they're inherently bad. Especially if you're a student and the like. I did supply teaching for a while, which is I suppose is 0 hour, and that worked really well for me. But I've seen both ends of the spectrum; I can see why people can view them as bad, because they can be open for abuse. 1
Captain... Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: I don't believe that they significantly are, which is why I'm asking for stats. The tone has also changed somewhat. Whose tone? There are plenty of stats which one are you looking for? Record high 910,000 people are on zero hours contracts, which has risen rapidly from around 200,000 in 2011. It had been a fairly steady around 200,000 until then: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/zero-hours-contracts-uk-record-high
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 5 minutes ago, Captain... said: Whose tone? There are plenty of stats which one are you looking for? Record high 910,000 people are on zero hours contracts, which has risen rapidly from around 200,000 in 2011. It had been a fairly steady around 200,000 until then: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/03/zero-hours-contracts-uk-record-high That's not what I'm asking for, them stats were provided earlier. How many zero hour contracts fail to provide enough work for their employees? How many employees are unhappy with their zero hour contacts? How many zero hour employees have chosen these contracts over more secure full time part time contracts? How many zero hour employees claim in work benefits? The sharp rise in zero hour contracts might be due to changes in how the workforce wants to operate, it's not necessarily all bad. Before we jump up and down and label a whole ethic as some sort of scandal, we should find out the details.
Captain... Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: That's not what I'm asking for, them stats were provided earlier. How many zero hour contracts fail to provide enough work for their employees? How many employees are unhappy with their zero hour contacts? How many zero hour employees have chosen these contracts over more secure full time part time contracts? How many zero hour employees claim in work benefits? The sharp rise in zero hour contracts might be due to changes in how the workforce wants to operate, it's not necessarily all bad. Before we jump up and down and label a whole ethic as some sort of scandal, we should find out the details. I've not said zero hours contracts are bad and everyone on them is being exploited, nor made any reference to the above, other than to say that if you are on a zero hours contract you can still claim JSA. They are not the same as being fully employed as there is no security in them, and parading around inflated employment figures on the back of it is not an indication of a thriving economy. That was the original point.
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 5 minutes ago, Captain... said: I've not said zero hours contracts are bad and everyone on them is being exploited, nor made any reference to the above, other than to say that if you are on a zero hours contract you can still claim JSA. They are not the same as being fully employed as there is no security in them, and parading around inflated employment figures on the back of it is not an indication of a thriving economy. That was the original point. They are being talked down as worse than full time employment, when in some cases it can be the opposite. They are valid and unless you have figures to say how many people are claiming JSA and working zero hour contracts, I'd be inclined to believe that's it's exceptional circumstances rather than a trend.
Captain... Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: They are being talked down as worse than full time employment, when in some cases it can be the opposite. They are valid and unless you have figures to say how many people are claiming JSA and working zero hour contracts, I'd be inclined to believe that's it's exceptional circumstances rather than a trend. The pros and cons of zero hours contracts are a separate issue, the fact is that they are built on sand and can collapse at any minute. Stability is key to the economy not just a snapshot in time. Looking at trends the increase in zero hours contracts is worrying, because they give no security and no stability. As a result lenders will be reluctant to lend to people on zero hours contracts making it even harder for young people to get property. Saying that the high employment figures propped up by zero hours contracts is an example of our economic success is wholly misleading, especially when you consider the fall in people earning a living wage and the shortening impact Brexit has had on the labour market. BTW There are a bucket load of stats here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017 Around a third (32%) of people on “zero-hours contracts” want more hours compared with 9% of people in employment not on a zero-hours contract, though this could be linked to a higher proportion of “zero-hours contract” jobs being part-time. Looking in more detail, 9% of people on “zero-hours contracts” would like a different job with more hours compared with 1% for other people in employment (the remainder would like more hours in their current job or an additional job) (Figure 7). The actual hours recorded are the hours worked by an individual during the survey reference week. The majority of people on “zero-hours contracts” (65%) reported that they worked part-time, compared with 26% of other workers. This means that the average actual weekly hours worked in their main job, by someone on a “zero-hours contract” are lower at 22.0 per week compared with the average actual weekly hours for all workers at 31.8. This shows a similar pattern to usual hours worked, that is, the weekly hours usually worked throughout the year, which were 25.2 and 36.4 for people on “zero-hours contracts” and all workers respectively. 1
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Captain... said: The pros and cons of zero hours contracts are a separate issue, the fact is that they are built on sand and can collapse at any minute. Stability is key to the economy not just a snapshot in time. Looking at trends the increase in zero hours contracts is worrying, because they give no security and no stability. As a result lenders will be reluctant to lend to people on zero hours contracts making it even harder for young people to get property. Saying that the high employment figures propped up by zero hours contracts is an example of our economic success is wholly misleading, especially when you consider the fall in people earning a living wage and the shortening impact Brexit has had on the labour market. BTW There are a bucket load of stats here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/mar2017 Around a third (32%) of people on “zero-hours contracts” want more hours compared with 9% of people in employment not on a zero-hours contract, though this could be linked to a higher proportion of “zero-hours contract” jobs being part-time. Looking in more detail, 9% of people on “zero-hours contracts” would like a different job with more hours compared with 1% for other people in employment (the remainder would like more hours in their current job or an additional job) (Figure 7). The actual hours recorded are the hours worked by an individual during the survey reference week. The majority of people on “zero-hours contracts” (65%) reported that they worked part-time, compared with 26% of other workers. This means that the average actual weekly hours worked in their main job, by someone on a “zero-hours contract” are lower at 22.0 per week compared with the average actual weekly hours for all workers at 31.8. This shows a similar pattern to usual hours worked, that is, the weekly hours usually worked throughout the year, which were 25.2 and 36.4 for people on “zero-hours contracts” and all workers respectively. Perhaps legislation should be made whereby if after 12 weeks employment an employee must be offered minimum hours contract and opt out if they choose not too. A bit like the agency employee protection act. Thanks for those stats btw, I see that 27.5% of zero hour contracts are in healthcare or education. Both these industries will need this flexibility to be able to cover sickness and such, so it's pretty vital. I think the accommodation and food industries are where a large proportion of the negative stories come from and that is the largest sector at 22% and I'd imagine retail to be a pretty bad sector also (sports direct spring to mind) 8%. Having read through as much of that data as I can right now, I'm not really seeing any reason why these are being derided in the fashion they tend to be. Edited 9 August 2017 by Strokes
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 My wife works a zero hours contract job at the moment and it is pretty gash. She took it on as it was convenient for the hours she wanted to work around childcare etc which is a great benefit. Problem is as soon as she said that she couldn't do a particular shift, her hours were cut. Then when they put the hours back up, they put her on shifts that she couldn't do because of the child care aspect (which she explained to them fully when she was taken on) so they cut her down again. I've no doubt that it suits many people, but I don't see how a good or bad picture can be painted on the subject. Having spoken to some of her colleagues, even if they were incredibly unhappy at the nature of the contract, if they were asked they would say the opposite through fear of any reprisal. It's such a shame that they exist. 2
Captain... Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 32 minutes ago, Strokes said: Perhaps legislation should be made whereby if after 12 weeks employment an employee must be offered minimum hours contract and opt out if they choose not too. A bit like the agency employee protection act. Thanks for those stats btw, I see that 27.5% of zero hour contracts are in healthcare or education. Both these industries will need this flexibility to be able to cover sickness and such, so it's pretty vital. I think the accommodation and food industries are where a large proportion of the negative stories come from and that is the largest sector at 22% and I'd imagine retail to be a pretty bad sector also (sports direct spring to mind) 8%. Having read through as much of that data as I can right now, I'm not really seeing any reason why these are being derided in the fashion they tend to be. In this case it was the unemployment figures that were being derided not zero hours contracts, everything you say about them is true, they suit certain needs and lifestyles and are obviously better than no work, but they lead to uncertainty and have been exploited. Similar to pay day loans, the concept is valid but the execution horrendous and exploitative. I agree we need tighter legislation to protect people. 3
Carl the Llama Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 1 hour ago, Strokes said: Perhaps legislation should be made whereby if after 12 weeks employment an employee must be offered minimum hours contract and opt out if they choose not too. A bit like the agency employee protection act. Thanks for those stats btw, I see that 27.5% of zero hour contracts are in healthcare or education. Both these industries will need this flexibility to be able to cover sickness and such, so it's pretty vital. I think the accommodation and food industries are where a large proportion of the negative stories come from and that is the largest sector at 22% and I'd imagine retail to be a pretty bad sector also (sports direct spring to mind) 8%. Having read through as much of that data as I can right now, I'm not really seeing any reason why these are being derided in the fashion they tend to be. Regardless of whether or not you think they're humane (I notice a distinct lack of members who rely on one saying they think it's great to enjoy the freedom from secure employment... also there are already ways to cope with sick employees and covering for them without stripping the entire workforce of their job security), you absolutely have to accept that as an indicator of employment levels it's blatantly papering over the cracks, to say anything else is just wilful economic blindness.
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Regardless of whether or not you think they're humane (I notice a distinct lack of members who rely on one saying they think it's great to enjoy the freedom from secure employment... also there are already ways to cope with sick employees and covering for them without stripping the entire workforce of their job security), you absolutely have to accept that as an indicator of employment levels it's blatantly papering over the cracks, to say anything else is just wilful economic blindness. If they are employed and not on JSA or similar, I genuinely congratulate the government on a job well done.
Captain... Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I notice a distinct lack of members who rely on one saying they think it's great to enjoy the freedom from secure employment... Technically I am on one and have loved it for the last 12 months which has included extended holidays in Asia and sitting in the sunshine while everyone else is working and logging hundreds of hours on Zelda. I am not really indicative of the norm when it comes to zero hours contracts, technically I have no security but I have a good employer and we work well together and have a good relationship, they also need me. I expect this to be the case for the majority of the 200,000 or so people on "zero hours" contracts up to 2014 which saw a huge increase in zero hours contracts, quadrupling in a few years, as company's saw how they could exploit it. Edited 9 August 2017 by Captain...
Rincewind Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 1 hour ago, Captain... said: In this case it was the unemployment figures that were being derided not zero hours contracts, everything you say about them is true, they suit certain needs and lifestyles and are obviously better than no work, but they lead to uncertainty and have been exploited. Similar to pay day loans, the concept is valid but the execution horrendous and exploitative. I agree we need tighter legislation to protect people. I agree with this. The term Zero hour contract has changed in meaning. There is a difference between having an agreement with a company to work when required and being unemployed and being told that various companies may call at anytime and require you drop everything and go into work. This leaves no time to make arrangements for baby minders booking other appointments even applying for full time jobs. Failing to accept the work could result in suspension of JSA. The other type of ZHC is fine. For a student working part time as a barman or someone who has a working partner. They know roughly the hours they will be working and can say dont call certain times or days as they have other things on. There are companies that take unemployed people on for 3-4 months. They could offer a full time job after this time but often a whole group that are on the work programme are told they are no longer needed. The jobcentre then send a new group to be paid next to nothing as they are on JSA but classified as employed. This makes the figures look better. Its the old trick of moving figures around and the glass that is half empty or half full situation. It happens a lot in politics. None of it is real.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 Just now, Strokes said: If they are employed and not on JSA or similar, I genuinely congratulate the government on a job well done. Sure, and if my aunty's my uncle and not a transvestite or similar, I genuinely congratulate her on a having bollocks well done. You wouldn't remove the safety belts from the side of a canal and justify it by saying that a large number of the population can swim, why would you remove safety nets from the workforce and justify it by saying a large number of them get by fine anyway? 6 minutes ago, Captain... said: Technically I am on one and have loved it for the last 12 months which has included extended holidays in Asia and sitting in the sunshine while everyone else is working and logging hundreds of hours on Zelda. I am not really indicative of the norm when it comes to zero hours contracts, technically I have no security but I have a good employer and we work well together and have a good relationship, they also need me. I expect this to be the case for the majority of the 200,000 or so people on "zero hours" contracts up to 2014 which saw a huge increase in zero hours contracts, quadrupling in a few years, as companies saw how they could exploit it. You arse But yeah, when the employer's decent they can work - I've been on two and in both cases there were periods where I had no problem with the arrangement... The problems arise when they realise you've become pretty efficient at your job so they start cutting hours and you have no course of action to protect your income if they refuse to adjust your hourly rate accordingly (because if you don't like it they'll find someone else who's desperate enough to). And unfortunately despite what some on here seem to believe there aren't actually hundreds of better paying jobs to just walk in to if you're good enough.
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Sure, and if my aunty's my uncle and not a transvestite or similar, I genuinely congratulate her on a having bollocks well done. You wouldn't remove the safety belts from the side of a canal and justify it by saying that a large number of the population can swim, why would you remove safety nets from the workforce and justify it by saying a large number of them get by fine anyway? I don't disagree that some legislation couldn't be introduced to help protect workers a little more but many have chosen this as a preferred method of employment for themselves, rather than it being forced upon them. A lot of people in work don't require the same security that others do and are quite happy to trade that off for flexibility, I really don't take issue with it.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I don't disagree that some legislation couldn't be introduced to help protect workers a little more but many have chosen this as a preferred method of employment for themselves, rather than it being forced upon them. A lot of people in work don't require the same security that others do and are quite happy to trade that off for flexibility, I really don't take issue with it. I'm with you on the personal responsibility bit, if a person wants to take a swim in the ZHC canal then I have no issue with it either assuming they're fully aware of the implications, but if somebody who can't 'swim' does fall in (and it happens), tough luck we've thrown the life belts away?
Rincewind Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 I do not see how a job can be flexible if you do not know what days or hours you are working. When I did security I sometimes got calls to go and do a 12 hour shift on my day off 5 or six hours before the shift started. Sometimes I was out shopping or having a pint. I was told that technically I was on 24/7 call so had to be ready if another officer was taken ill. The problem with ZH contracts now is as others have said they are exploited. A person on JSA still has to sign off and on so they cannot work on signing on days and cant sign on if they agreed to work. Either way they are in danger of being sanctioned if they do not turn up for one or the other. The companies dont mind ZHC because it is cheaper and they are not obbliged to offer the same security as full time workers and the government dont mind them because it makes the employment figures look better.
Innovindil Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I'm with you on the personal responsibility bit, if a person wants to take a swim in the ZHC canal then I have no issue with it either assuming they're fully aware of the implications, but if somebody who can't 'swim' does fall in (and it happens), tough luck we've thrown the life belts away? Did you read the first bit before the bold or no? He's for legislation on it, so as your example, there should/would/could be life belts for those who need them. 1
Strokes Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I'm with you on the personal responsibility bit, if a person wants to take a swim in the ZHC canal then I have no issue with it either assuming they're fully aware of the implications, but if somebody who can't 'swim' does fall in (and it happens), tough luck we've thrown the life belts away? I've said the legislation could do with being drawn up to protect employees from companies who abuse this type of employment, but it's in no way should we be scrapping zero hour contracts.
Webbo Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said: I guess I'm just really, really unlucky because I've only ever known a zero hours contract to be tool for managerial twattery and an excuse for business owners to fall back on the whole 'the company isn't earning enough to give everyone the hours they need right now' argument to justify running a skeleton crew of underpaid staff (just ignore the improved custom recently and the execs buying new cars and new houses). But of course some members of this board have decent jobs where they've never had to deal with job insecurity and abusive managers so the problems of unregulated capitalism can't possibly exist. I'm self employed, if nobody rings me up and asks me to do their painting I don't work. I've had to have a day off today because of the weather (unpaid), I don't get sick pay or holiday pay either. That's the life I've chosen. I don't blame others when things aren't going well.
Carl the Llama Posted 9 August 2017 Posted 9 August 2017 Just now, Strokes said: I've said the legislation could do with being drawn up to protect employees from companies who abuse this type of employment, but it's in no way should we be scrapping zero hour contracts. Here's the difficulty though: What measures can you suggest that would protect workers without drastically affecting the freedom to employers that makes ZHCs so attractive to the glorified slavers out there? If there was a fixed minimum weekly income for employees on a ZHC that might prevent so many people taking the piss. 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm self employed, if nobody rings me up and asks me to do their painting I don't work. I've had to have a day off today because of the weather (unpaid), I don't get sick pay or holiday pay either. That's the life I've chosen. I don't blame others when things aren't going well. And that's your choice and by the sounds of it when things are going well you earn enough to give you a bit of cover for the periods when they aren't. That's absolutely no reason for you to sit in your house and decide that the people who are on a ZHC because it was all they could get and who could be a month away from living on the streets at any given point have got what they deserved.
Recommended Posts