Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

I worked my way through university as a security guard, my job was to be a support officer and cover sickness etc. At first I was working on a guaranteed 40 hours contract, which meant they would pay me the difference if they couldn't give me 40 hours, but to be fair this only happened once in 12 months.

When I started my degree I had to drop my available hours to 36 (Fri, Sat, Sun nights 12 hour shifts) and due to paying my fees etc I really needed that 36 hours to get by. When I dropped my hours they put me on a casual/0 hours contract as I couldn't fulfil the 40 hours any more. I thought fair enough, I haven't struggled to get shifts so I should be ok, as most people don't want to work weekends.

Only problem was, that my manager decided that I was better when he could call me any day of the week to work, and started to favour other more flexible staff (who he would have to pay up to 40 hours if he didn't give them work) with the shifts that were going.

This is when I started getting calls that basically went "Hi, sorry I don't need you this weekend, you are surplus to requirements this week".

Not much fun really, when the rent still needs paying etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Disgusting really, shows how little things have changed and why we need employment protection laws.

..agreed ...if this is true they should not be allowed to operate ....put's the customer at risk due to unhappy workers....not a safe situation... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

..agreed ...if this is true they should not be allowed to operate ....put's the customer at risk due to unhappy workers....not a safe situation... :rolleyes:

I don't think they exist anymore - I'm not sure whether they were legislated against or whether they just got such a bad press - I did say it was back in the mid/late 1990s?

Anyway, I've found the story now from 1995

My link

So when I heard more recently about zero hours contracts again on the news I thought it must be these sort of things returning - but, thankfully the modern ones aren't quite that bad!

The 900 employees, who received average back pay of pounds 118 for the six months to September, had been made to stand around, unpaid, in the burger restaurants until business picked up.

One Glasgow student said that he had received pounds 1 for a five-hour stint, and another employee in Cardiff claimed she was paid nothing after she had worked a shift.

Edited by oldsport
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Labour movement fought against this back in the 30s through to the 50s.At the shipyards and docks you used to turn up and be put in a cage with a door.Someone would turn up and pick however many they needed that day,you,you ,you you, etc.

According to Tom O'Connor in Liverpool, when work was short, the selector would chose workers by first tapping the shoulders of those who had placed a shilling or half-a-crown (whatever it was), for who they needed for the day.

It's a competitive world, and too much employment regulation I tend to find leads to more costs on business and less employment and deep depressions. Some businesses have been started by individuals, have investors, shareholders, and a chain of interests that need operations to compete in the marketplace. Not some state entity or corporate that should serve the public needs, to churn out jobs at higher wage rates than ungrateful individuals bring to the business in any changeable market conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta, thought I was going mad!

Do you remember there was an even worse type of zero hours contract in the late 1990s - Burger King got caught - staff had to sit in the building all day but only got paid when the restaurant busy - so am employee could work a whole day for a £1.

Late 1990s? I don't believe it, and if it is true, then the employee(s) must have been idiots with no skills at all to impress other employers in any other sector, for accepting those conditions. How did Burger King hold on to its employees if true. Perhaps ok to accept that job for a few days temporarily whilst applying for others, to show other employers you were in work in the sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Late 1990s? I don't believe it, and if it is true, then the employee(s) must have been idiots with no skills at all to impress other employers in any other sector, for accepting those conditions. How did Burger King hold on to its employees if true. Perhaps ok to accept that job for a few days temporarily whilst applying for others, to show other employers you were in work in the sector.

So the story was found, and posted, but you don't believe it?

Whist ordinarily I would say that I wouldn't wish a zero hours contract on anybody, some people clearly would derive an educational benefit from the experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the story was found, and posted, but you don't believe it?

Whist ordinarily I would say that I wouldn't wish a zero hours contract on anybody, some people clearly would derive an educational benefit from the experience.

I am sure prisoners get a better deal.

I've rarely spent money in a BK, and after reading this NEVER WILL. The only way to "educate" these firms is to boycott them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the story was found, and posted, but you don't believe it?

Whist ordinarily I would say that I wouldn't wish a zero hours contract on anybody, some people clearly would derive an educational benefit from the experience.

Ta. Can see the Independent link, now I completed reading page 4 of this thread, and have just read the Indy's 1995 article.

They got compensation it seems, even for the hours when they'd chosen to go home, instead of work for nothing/very little. I disagree with the the General Secretary who said it proves we need a national minimum wage.

Up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the work, the ad-hoc pay conditions, and it can lead to promotion or improved prospects of landing a better job, from a position of being employed. A pound is not really enough for anyone to chose to tough it out to that end goal though.

Except then National Minimum Wage was introduced, which allowed many higher ups in so many public and private organisations to award themselves huge payrises, from the minimum wagers. Huge gaps in pay. And is why now many a company can't afford to pay minimum wage and employ people with the economy retracting post-boom-debt money, so they don't employ or now offer zero-hour deals, and why the Coalition is considering removing nmw. Set too high for market conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta. Can see the Independent link, now I completed reading page 4 of this thread, and have just read the Indy's 1995 article.

They got compensation it seems, even for the hours when they'd chosen to go home, instead of work for nothing/very little. I disagree with the the General Secretary who said it proves we need a national minimum wage.

Up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the work, the ad-hoc pay conditions, and it can lead to promotion or improved prospects of landing a better job, from a position of being employed. A pound is not really enough for anyone to chose to tough it out to that end goal though.

Except then National Minimum Wage was introduced, which allowed many higher ups in so many public and private organisations to award themselves huge payrises, from the minimum wagers. Huge gaps in pay. And is why now many a company can't afford to pay minimum wage and employ people with the economy retracting post-boom-debt money, so they don't employ or now offer zero-hour deals, and why the Coalition is considering removing nmw. Set too high for market conditions.

until forced state restrictions on completely natural resources whos existence have fck all to do with the state are removed the bold is clearly complete mince

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Ta. Can see the Independent link, now I completed reading page 4 of this thread, and have just read the Indy's 1995 article.

They got compensation it seems, even for the hours when they'd chosen to go home, instead of work for nothing/very little. I disagree with the the General Secretary who said it proves we need a national minimum wage.

Up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the work, the ad-hoc pay conditions, and it can lead to promotion or improved prospects of landing a better job, from a position of being employed. A pound is not really enough for anyone to chose to tough it out to that end goal though.

Except then National Minimum Wage was introduced, which allowed many higher ups in so many public and private organisations to award themselves huge payrises, from the minimum wagers. Huge gaps in pay. And is why now many a company can't afford to pay minimum wage and employ people with the economy retracting post-boom-debt money, so they don't employ or now offer zero-hour deals, and why the Coalition is considering removing nmw. Set too high for market conditions.

I agree with you completely about the minimum wage. but examples like the one quoted are just taking the piss, and probably criminal to boot.

Anyway, I'd just like to add that I was violently ill after eating in Burger King Teesside Park last week - the customer turnover was so low that my burger had probably been under the grill for three hours, and they didn't appear to be able to afford to turn on the heating or repair the many broken fixtures. So perhaps it does come around eventually. I certainly won't ever be gracing them with my presence again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They got compensation it seems, even for the hours when they'd chosen to go home, instead of work for nothing/very little. I disagree with the the General Secretary who said it proves we need a national minimum wage.

Only because Burger King didn't keep records of who stuck around and who didn't and since they were already firefighting, threw a bone to the press to try and salvage a teeny tiny bit of good feeling!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only because Burger King didn't keep records of who stuck around and who didn't and since they were already firefighting, threw a bone to the press to try and salvage a teeny tiny bit of good feeling!

Hmm. Still thinking about this. (Worse than horse-meat?). Whatever; they did throw that bone for damage-limitation and customer perception in 1995 to move on quickly. I still believe in individual choice though.

Meanwhile in the US there are employees unhappy (latest news story) about their hours being reduced at many fast-food places including Burger King.

Shortly after, Le Grand got a 20 cent raise, but her hours were cut to 24 from 38 per week. Within five months, she was working only 11.5 hours.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/mcdonalds-wendys-burger-king-kfc-and-pizza-hut-workers-to-strike-in-new-york

Meanwhile the CEO gets a big payrise (in the millions), and he's also a partner at 3G Capital, who took it private in 2010. They must see more value in it than I do (real-estate?) although drawing big income-dividends in the here-and-now must be nice.

http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Burger+King+gets+hike/8186983/story.html

Went to a Burger King once but left without ordering anything. Person in-front of us at the counter was complaining about their previous visit, putting us right off eating.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271440/Burger-King-admits-selling-beef-burgers-Whoppers-containing-horse-meat.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta. Can see the Independent link, now I completed reading page 4 of this thread, and have just read the Indy's 1995 article.

They got compensation it seems, even for the hours when they'd chosen to go home, instead of work for nothing/very little. I disagree with the the General Secretary who said it proves we need a national minimum wage.

Up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the work, the ad-hoc pay conditions, and it can lead to promotion or improved prospects of landing a better job, from a position of being employed. A pound is not really enough for anyone to chose to tough it out to that end goal though.

Except then National Minimum Wage was introduced, which allowed many higher ups in so many public and private organisations to award themselves huge payrises, from the minimum wagers. Huge gaps in pay. And is why now many a company can't afford to pay minimum wage and employ people with the economy retracting post-boom-debt money, so they don't employ or now offer zero-hour deals, and why the Coalition is considering removing nmw. Set too high for market conditions.

This is nonsense. The reason incomes for those at the top have risen so fast is due to the changes in the relative bargaining power of workers vs capital and capital like agents (CEO's are an example of this). Workers have lost power, meaning more income goes to capital and capital like agents, which we then observe in the rapid escalation of incomes for those at the top. Even before the introduction of the minimum wage in 1997 we had seen that rapid escalation in action, which if what you'd posted was correct, would not have happened. Thus this rise in inequality in incomes has nil, zero, zilch to do with the minimum wage.

As for it being set too high for market conditions this too is nonsense. Meta studies have show that there is next to nil correlation between an appropriately set minimum wage and unemployment, which we would expect to see an increase in if it were set too high for market conditions

2013-03-27-Metasummaryofminmiumwageemploymenteffects_cropped.jpg

What you can take from the graph is that the x-axis corresponds to the correlation between wages and unemployment, and the y-axis to the precision of the study. What is key is that the most dependable studies in terms of accuracy of results are those most likely to show zero correlation.

But this really should not be a surprise. We have gone from a full employment system for low end workers where wages reflect the value you add (minus an adequate return to capital and capital like agents), to one where it reflects how easy to replace you are. Thus wages at the low end rather than being too high for market conditions are in reality too low. Capital and capital like agents are simply using the ease of replacement of workers as a rent extraction method on low end workers, as a means to increase profits and their own incomes. They would be willing to settle for far far less but don't have to.

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with 3 companies. Each of them calls me in from time to time to help with their accounts department. We have agreed hourly rates and working arrangements, and although there is no minimum commitment on any of them, I get enough work for my needs.

I like working like this, its more flexible than a full time job, allowing me to spend time with my young children. The variety makes it interesting. And the companies seem to like it to.

In your world, it would be illegal for me to work like this?

I think the issue is with jobs which should normaly be regarded as full time or part time with defined hours. eg nephew got job at a famous take-away junk food joint. Was told he had zero contract hours but must be on tap for when they want him. First week he got 30 or so hours broken up over seven days, the next week he got about 10. He has been sent home several times after ariving at work and finding that the boss was calling 3 people in (when he percieved the place was getting busy) but then deciding he only really needed 1 or 2 extra workers. Another female we met recently told us she got a job in one of our esteemed supermarkets and they guaranteeed her min 2 hours per day, 7 days a week, however she had to be on tap all the time, could be called in at 8am or 8pm or start at 9am and work till 8pm, none of it optional or she would be sacked or miss out for a week or two as punishment. This is 3rd world economics at work, along with mass immigration to keep wages down, nothing but a spiral to the bottom (just how 'THEY' want it)

YOu on the other hand are more like a self employed accounts jockey, in quite a different position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Up to the individual to decide whether they want to take the work,

And it's up to you to decide if you want to hand your wallet to a mugger or take the chance of being stabbed. Freedom is absolute.

Of course you might want to quibble and claim that the situation you found yourself in limited your choices- but that would hold true for a guy desperate for work also.

So when is a free choice not a free choice? Does the fact that external pressures are in play limit freedom- or are all choices by definition free choices?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.