2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Rincewind]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/25/in-britains-labour-market-flexibility-means-letting-employers-off-the-hook

[MiniFox]

Taxes such as the 50% tax rate will most likely be introduced for the highest tax rate, but other than that, I cant see ordinary working people being too affected by any tax changes, tax loopholes will at least be attempted to be closed, although I do think 50% is too high, regardless its fairer than making welfare cuts and increasing VAT.

 

But 2 million jobs created is of course good, you can't fault the fact they've used apprenticeships to help get more young people into work, but if all those on zero hour contracts were given the option to have a permanent job, then this would be more of an achievement.

[Benji]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/25/in-britains-labour-market-flexibility-means-letting-employers-off-the-hook

I understand completely the drawbacks highlighted in that article, but again, given the choice between no work and some work, which is better?

It's definitely not a permanent solution and as I say, companies should be actively monitored and discouraged from abusing the system to benefit from non-permanent employee payments, but used correctly they serve a valid purpose.

[MiniFox]

I understand completely the drawbacks highlighted in that article, but again, given the choice between no work and some work, which is better?

It's definitely not a permanent solution and as I say, companies should be actively monitored and discouraged from abusing the system to benefit from non-permanent employee payments, but used correctly they serve a valid purpose.

Some work is better than no work, but I think the argument is like you said, its not a permanent solution, yet for many, this is their only job, the idea is to offer a better quality of work where possible.

[Strokes]

My missus gave up her contracted hours to go zero hours voluntarily, it helps us with child care. She works for the NHS and just picks and chooses the shifts she wants. It most certainly is not all bad on a zero hour contract.

Its been that good for us, she probably won't seek contracted work after our youngest starts school.

[Rincewind]

I agree but this coalition does not seem to want to tighten up on the rules or admit that there is a problem. I worked for an agency and stipulated what days I was willing to do but some agency work like in a warehouse the person turns up on a day then names are read from a list. The ones unselected have to go home. This could be at 5am or 11pm. Not a great way to spend your working life.

This is how it was during the 20's depression. We do not want a return to that do we?

[Rincewind]

My missus gave up her contracted hours to go zero hours voluntarily, it helps us with child care. She works for the NHS and just picks and chooses the shifts she wants. It most certainly is not all bad on a zero hour contract.

Its been that good for us, she probably won't seek contracted work after our youngest starts school.

You have said how it should be. 'She picks and chooses her hours' This is not the case for many.

[Guest MattP]

I agree but this coalition does not seem to want to tighten up on the rules or admit that there is a problem. I worked for an agency and stipulated what days I was willing to do but some agency work like in a warehouse the person turns up on a day then names are read from a list. The ones unselected have to go home. This could be at 5am or 11pm. Not a great way to spend your working life.

This is how it was during the 20's depression. We do not want a return to that do we?

I can absolutely assure you it was not like the 20's depression. You didn't get free food, drink and accommodation if you couldn't find work by then.

The Tories have done more than the previous government to tighten this up, for a start they have allowed people on them to seek other work.

[MiniFox]

My missus gave up her contracted hours to go zero hours voluntarily, it helps us with child care. She works for the NHS and just picks and chooses the shifts she wants. It most certainly is not all bad on a zero hour contract.

Its been that good for us, she probably won't seek contracted work after our youngest starts school.

I'm not going to make this assumption but maybe you have a job that is well enough paid to cover both of you and your children, where as for many this is not the case, I'm not saying you do, but it just seems odd that someone would willing go onto a zero hours contract, especially if they needed the money for bills, mortgage/rent etc.

[Benji]

You have said how it should be. 'She picks and chooses her hours' This is not the case for many.

The reality is employee-discretion led approaches like that just would not work in a lot of cases / would nullify the benefit of the system to employers. There should be some protections afforded to employees. For example I don't see why if an employer has a list of say 20 names it can't text the chosen 15 or so two hours before the start of the shift to say who is and isn't needed to save someone travelling in to find out they're not needed. I can understand some companies (such as factories) may not know how much help they need weeks in advance (i.e. not knowing production levels and demands for a given week) but I'm sure they can make a decent guess the night before or the morning of.

[Rincewind]

I think flexible hours is being confused with zero hours here. I would not mind flexible hours but not knowing until a couple of hours before I would not be happy  with. With flexible hours you can still have a life outside work.

[Strokes]

I'm not going to make this assumption but maybe you have a job that is well enough paid to cover both of you and your children, where as for many this is not the case, I'm not saying you do, but it just seems odd that someone would willing go onto a zero hours contract, especially if they needed the money for bills, mortgage/rent etc.

That's true, but as she will be in the 700,000 quoted its still relevant. How many more are there by choice?

[MiniFox]

That's true, but as she will be in the 700,000 quoted its still relevant. How many more are there by choice?

Who knows? From a general look it seems a lot would prefer not to be, but surely that's why it would be helpful to offer some form of an alternative option, not ban zero hour contracts altogether, then those who are happy with zero hour contracts can remain on them.

[Strokes]

Who knows? From a general look it seems a lot would prefer not to be, but surely that's why it would be helpful to offer some form of an alternative option, not ban zero hour contracts altogether, then those who are happy with zero hour contracts can remain on them.

I don't where I got this from so I might be well off the mark, but I'm sure rules were put in place whereby if a company employs an agency staff member for a four month period, they are obliged to offer a contract. Surely this could be applied to zero contracts as it amounts to the same thing.

[Bettsj2]

My wife is on a zero hours contract and its a pain in the ass.

She gets there at 9 and most days finishes at 1 but we have to put my daughter in childcare for the whole day as we cant risk a half day in case my wife works all day.

More often than not she doesnt and the amount we pay in childcare wipes out the money she earns working in the morning.

If you're young, single and living with your parents with no kids, zero hours contracts would probably be fine. For anyone else I cannot see the value.

[Strokes]

I think flexible hours is being confused with zero hours here. I would not mind flexible hours but not knowing until a couple of hours before I would not be happy with. With flexible hours you can still have a life outside work.

If you don't have contracted hours you are on a zero hour contract. Flexible hours you choose which hours you want to work but are contracted a set amount. I'm not getting confused, are you?

[MiniFox]

I don't where I got this from so I might be well off the mark, but I'm sure rules were put in place whereby if a company employs an agency staff member for a four month period, they are obliged to offer a contract. Surely this could be applied to zero contracts as it amounts to the same thing.

Something like this should be implemented, however I'm just not convinced that conservatives even want to change zero hour contracts at all, which for some is clearly not a good thing.

 

My wife is on a zero hours contract and its a pain in the ass.

She gets there at 9 and most days finishes at 1 but we have to put my daughter in childcare for the whole day as we cant risk a half day in case my wife works all day.

More often than not she doesnt and the amount we pay in childcare wipes out the money she earns working in the morning.

If you're young, single and living with your parents with no kids, zero hours contracts would probably be fine. For anyone else I cannot see the value.

Other than circumstances such as the one above, I agree.

[Rincewind]

No but if an agreed number of hours are worked it is not strictly zero hour in the sense of not knowing until a couple of hours before if you are wanted and how long for..

I think we are all in agreement to some extent.

[Strokes]

No but if an agreed number of hours are worked it is not strictly zero hour in the sense of not knowing until a couple of hours before if you are wanted and how long for.

My missus is on a zero hour contract, there are no agreed hours. She is lucky that it is an industry that is always understaffed and can get a shift on any given day she wants. I say lucky but that's why you do five years training to be skilled in a job, otherwise you are forced to join the rat race.

All these zero hour contracts a indirectly linked to the freedom of movement act in any case, employers would treat non skilled employees a lot better if there wasn't a huge pool of enthusiasts ready to replace them.

[Benji]

I think flexible hours is being confused with zero hours here. I would not mind flexible hours but not knowing until a couple of hours before I would not be happy  with. With flexible hours you can still have a life outside work.

The problem is you are looking at this with what I would describe as a typically English negative outlook.

Scenario:

An increase in unemployment due to circumstances such as the financial crisis, banks not lending to small businesses etc. etc.

Long-term solution:

Sort out the economy and create or encourage the creation of full-time and part-time jobs.

Problem:

What do you do in the meantime? If private businesses are not creating jobs and all political parties agree on the need (disagreeing perhaps on the magnitude) of public sector cuts, what do you do while policies to achieve the long-term solution and matters more outside your control (e.g. the economy/confidence in the banking sector) take time to come into effect?

To the extent that zero-hours contracts allow employers to employ someone who they otherwise wouldn't have been able to employ then to me that is a good thing. Of course people would prefer certainty of fixed hours. Of course people would prefer flexible hours - flexible working is the bloody dream! But what's the reality? In this current state employers would be out of their minds to offer flexible working, especially if in an industry where they cannot predict their demand in advance.

They're not great and I regret if anyone has to live on these types of contracts for a prolonged period of time. Similarly I would hope things could be done to improve the unpredictability of hours at least in the form of notice and having people incur unneccessary expense on travel etc. But in priniple, used correctly, I agree with them and a ban would just see people shooting themselves in the foot. Companies will not just magically create new full-time jobs if these disappear.

[MiniFox]

The problem is you are looking at this with what I would describe as a typically English negative outlook.

Scenario:

An increase in unemployment due to circumstances such as the financial crisis, banks not lending to small businesses etc. etc.

Long-term solution:

Sort out the economy and create or encourage the creation of full-time and part-time jobs.

Problem:

What do you do in the meantime? If private businesses are not creating jobs and all political parties agree on the need (disagreeing perhaps on the magnitude) of public sector cuts, what do you do while policies to achieve the long-term solution and matters more outside your control (e.g. the economy/confidence in the banking sector) take time to come into effect?

To the extent that zero-hours contracts allow employers to employ someone who they otherwise wouldn't have been able to employ then to me that is a good thing. Of course people would prefer certainty of fixed hours. Of course people would prefer flexible hours - flexible working is the bloody dream! But what's the reality? In this current state employers would be out of their minds to offer flexible working, especially if in an industry where they cannot predict their demand in advance.

They're not great and I regret if anyone has to live on these types of contracts for a prolonged period of time. Similarly I would hope things could be done to improve the unpredictability of hours at least in the form of notice and having people incur unneccessary expense on travel etc. But in priniple, used correctly, I agree with them and a ban would just see people shooting themselves in the foot. Companies will not just magically create new full-time jobs if these disappear.

That is the predicament, businesses operate to make profit, if an employee is not going to make them profit, they wont be employed, but for businesses such as Sports Direct, who make a lot of money yet still have a large amount of zero hour contract employees, surely they do not have to give zero hour contracts.

 

If they did not have zero hour contracts the amount of wages spent would be negatively affected by this, however, it doesn't do their image any favours by having so many zero hour contracts and the fact they can afford to so why do they continue to have so many? Because they can. I don't think anyone is expecting smaller businesses fighting for survival to start bringing in staff on a full time contract or anything like that.

[Benji]

That is the predicament, businesses operate to make profit, if an employee is not going to make them profit, they wont be employed, but for businesses such as Sports Direct, who make a lot of money yet still have a large amount of zero hour contract employees, surely they do not have to give zero hour contracts.

 

If they did not have zero hour contracts the amount of wages spent would be negatively affected by this, however, it doesn't do their image any favours by having so many zero hour contracts and the fact they can afford to so why do they continue to have so many? Because they can. I don't think anyone is expecting smaller businesses fighting for survival to start bringing in staff on a full time contract or anything like that.

Totally agree - they should not be used as an exploitation. Obviously there need to be beneficial reasons (financially or otherwise) for an employer to bother, but they should be correctly monitored. I'd love to be able to suggest how to do that, but unfortunately I don't know anywhere near enough to do so!

[Stadt]

People don't shop at places because they have a good image, Starbucks had a bad image for about two weeks.

I'd prefer it if there was more permanent jobs but sports direct can probably 'employ' 10 times the number of people because of zero hour contracts.

I do agree however that there should be more regulation of zero hour contracts

[MiniFox]

Totally agree - they should not be used as an exploitation. Obviously there need to be beneficial reasons (financially or otherwise) for an employer to bother, but they should be correctly monitored. I'd love to be able to suggest how to do that, but unfortunately I don't know anywhere near enough to do so!

Exactly, but like you say, I couldn't come up with a solution, but regardless of what happens in May I hope someone does find a way to make it fairer.

 

People don't shop at places because they have a good image, Starbucks had a bad image for about two weeks.

I'd prefer it if there was more permanent jobs but sports direct can probably 'employ' 10 times the number of people because of zero hour contracts.

I do agree however that there should be more regulation of zero hour contracts

I agree, it doesn't do their image any favours like i said but then again, the majority don't particularly care, to be honest it isn't the sort of issue where it could make me not even consider going to Sports Direct, in fact not a lot of things could if I liked the product(s), Nike could use all the child labour they want, a lot of people still buy Nike regardless.

 

Maybe that's selfish, but I know I'm not alone.

[GaelicFox]

Meanwhile at UKIP HQ ..... Someone is fighting the law but law actually won

...EU directive 454 anti flammable materials LOL LOL