MooseBreath Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 A third of those on zero hours contract want more hours. suppose that could be a sign of 'happiness' eh?From the same report, "11% of people on zero hours contracts would like a new job with more hours". That says it all for me, 89% of people on zero hours contracts are happy enough to stay in the job. Some of them want more hours but these are typically low paid jobs paid by the hour, of course they want more hours. If 89% of people affected are generally happy then it's not really a problem, is it?
DB11 Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Your point being? I thought they were working part-time because they want to and are super mega happy apparently 'Just over a third of those employed on a “zero-hours contract” want more hours, with most wanting them in their current job. This is somewhat greater than for people not employed on a “zero-hours contract”. That if they were on a set amount of hours contract per week then they'd still want more hours. If they were getting 40 hours a week but on a zero hours contract they wouldn't want more hours. The contract they've got is irrelevant it is the amount of hours they are receiving that is what they want to change. It's probably even more simple that they want more money, which comes from more hours, rather than wanting to work more hours.
reynard Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I think it has a lot to do with your personal situation, whether you have kids, or dependents, whether your partner is employment, or whether you have a partner at all, hence why I asked the question. A couple of people stated they have a partner who's happy with a zero contract hours contract, and Moosey, who'll argue black is white regardless is not evidence to the contrary thought that individuals would prefer more hours and/or security. But that's not really about age is it which is what you seemed to be asking. Zero hours can be right for you whatever age you are. People's choices to accept zero hours are dependent upon many more things. They also allow some people to work who, if they had to commit to a certain number of hours per week would not be able to take the job in the first place. Zero hours depends on a mutual understanding between employer and employee without which it obviosly breaks down. For example those caring for a long term sick relative or dependant might welcome zero hours because of their domestic circumstances. Age is not necessarily a part of that.
sphericalfox Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm sure there are people on full time jobs who'd like more over time or a better job, everybody moans about their job. The only real evidence we have on this thread is 2 positive experiences. The implication that this is some kind of modern slavery and everyone on zero hour contracts is starving seems to be a bit of a myth. So how do you interpret that last sentence that I quoted? Does read as satisfied? Let's work this out to a basic conclusion. One third of the estimated 1.3m people on zero hours contracts are not satisified with amount of hours offered to them? Is that fair to extrapolate from the ONS provided evidence? That just over 430,000 people who I could speculate need these hours financially, don't we all, so under the offer of a zero hours contract, that from week to week has ZERO guarantee of regularity, you'd have to assume because it from one week to the next it does vary, that they would want more hours to make up for the irregularity of hours and insecure amount of income they earn, and that they are probably unhappy. If you have a different hypothesis, I'm all ears. Now maybe there 900k persons who are happy as shit, I don't have any evidence of that, but to dismiss 430k as insigniificant would be amazingly blinkered.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm sure it was stated recently that there are 700,000 on zhcs slightly less than 2% of the working population so 1 third would be around 230,000. As I said who doesn't moan about their job? According to the Guardian; The Office for National Statistics said the number of people estimated to be employed on a zero-hours contract in their main job was 697,000, representing 2.3% of all people in employment. In the same period in 2013, the figure was 1.9% of all people in employment, or 586,000. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/25/zero-hours-contract-rise-staff-figures
sphericalfox Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 But that's not really about age is it which is what you seemed to be asking. Zero hours can be right for you whatever age you are. People's choices to accept zero hours are dependent upon many more things. They also allow some people to work who, if they had to commit to a certain number of hours per week would not be able to take the job in the first place. Zero hours depends on a mutual understanding between employer and employee without which it obviosly breaks down. For example those caring for a long term sick relative or dependant might welcome zero hours because of their domestic circumstances. Age is not necessarily a part of that. The reason I asked is to see if you/wife fell into the statistical average age of those on on these contracts. Glad it works well for you, but it's misguided to believe that due to your own personal circumstances that everyone on a zero contract is hunky dory, and it's all about employee power, it's definetlly not.
sphericalfox Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm sure it was stated recently that there are 700,000 on zhcs slightly less than 2% of the working population so 1 third would be around 230,000. As I said who doesn't moan about their job? Ugh, you don't quite get it Webbo. It's not people moaning about their jobs, it's people unhappy that they are being shafted in particular industries by dickhead employers who treat their employees with a disdain but not offering them any security of even basic hours.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Ugh, you don't quite get it Webbo. It's not people moaning about their jobs, it's people unhappy that they are being shafted in particular industries by dickhead employers who treat their employees with a disdain but not offering them any security of even basic hours. According to your link 89% are happy with their job. Find me any job where 89% are happy with their lot.
MooseBreath Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Ugh, you don't quite get it Webbo. It's not people moaning about their jobs, it's people unhappy that they are being shafted in particular industrial ies by dickhead employers who treat their employees with a disdain but not offering them any security of even basic hours. Must have missed that response from the survey you linked us to. Pretty sure it didn't say anything like that, at all. You're just making things up again.
sphericalfox Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Must have missed that response from the survey you linked us to. Pretty sure it didn't say anything like that, at all. You're just making things up again. Webbo stated that 'it's just people moaning about work', y'know that's what people do. Yeah, it's nothing to do with job security or the hours they need..' ffs
Stadt Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Labour have announced that if people are on zero hour contracts for 12+ weeks then employers will have to give them a job
Webbo Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Webbo stated that 'it's just people moaning about work', y'know that's what people do. Yeah, it's nothing to do with job security or the hours they need..' ffs If they want different arrangements they can apply for a better job, it's not like there's a shortage of work atm.
Ross-Kemp Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 My sister is 20 (on a gap year between college & Uni). She's on a zero hour contract & she loves it. She tells her employer on a Friday what days / hours she's available the following week and gets shifts accordingly. She's been doing this for 9 months, never had less than 18 hours.
Rincewind Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 that is fine. she knows what hours she is doing and when. would be different if she made a hair appointment and had a phone call asking her to go in work in 2 hours whilst sitting in the chair having her hair done which will take three hours.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 that is fine. she knows what hours she is doing and when. would be different if she made a hair appointment and had a phone call asking her to go in work in 2 hours whilst sitting in the chair having her hair done which will take three hours. 3 hours? Where do you get your hair done?
Ross-Kemp Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 that is fine. she knows what hours she is doing and when. would be different if she made a hair appointment and had a phone call asking her to go in work in 2 hours whilst sitting in the chair having her hair done which will take three hours.That has & does happen. If she cannot go in, she will tell them no.Ken, out of curiosity, what experience do you have directly / personally with zero hour contracts...?
Rincewind Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm a bloke. I'm talking about a female. I would not do them. Like your sister when I was with an agency i told them the days that I could do. I could have left it open but i did not want the uncertainty of what i'd be doing day to day meaning i could do my shopping on set days.
Buce Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 3 hours? Where do you get your hair done? Bloody hell, Webbo, I thought you were married? My missus can spend three hours just washing her hair..
Stadt Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Bloody hell, Webbo, I thought you were married? My missus can spend three hours just washing her hair.. At Dave's house?
Webbo Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Bloody hell, Webbo, I thought you were married? My missus can spend three hours just washing her hair.. I've got a wife and 3 daughters.They've all got their own individual shampoos and conditioners . They all go out together for their haircuts, if it took 3 hours each I wouldn't see them all day and half the night.
Rincewind Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Ok maybe a little exaggeration but how long does not matter really.
Ross-Kemp Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 That has & does happen. If she cannot go in, she will tell them no. Ken, out of curiosity, what experience do you have directly / personally with zero hour contracts...? Care to answer Ken?
Rincewind Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 Care to answer Ken? I did.I do not see agreed hours and days as the problem.
Ross-Kemp Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm a bloke. I'm talking about a female. I would not do them. Like your sister when I was with an agency i told them the days that I could do. I could have left it open but i did not want the uncertainty of what i'd be doing day to day meaning i could do my shopping on set days. But you're talking about being on an agency, a zero hour contract is very different to that.So I'll ask my question again, please answer directly with a yes or no. As you have a lot to say on the matter, do you have any direct / personal connection with anyone who is on a zero hour contact?
MooseBreath Posted 31 March 2015 Posted 31 March 2015 I'm a bloke. I'm talking about a female. I would not do them. Like your sister when I was with an agency i told them the days that I could do. I could have left it open but i did not want the uncertainty of what i'd be doing day to day meaning i could do my shopping on set days. You wouldn't do them? Fair point, there is a choice in this country. You could just go on hand outs. Begs the question, why do people still do them if they're so bad and they could choose not to?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.