Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Oliver Sutton

Zero Hours Contracts

Recommended Posts

Now this is entrenched I can see virtually ALL newly created jobs and vacancies being zero hours contracts. As an employer you would be nuts not to do it. You may be competing against other total zero hour companies after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously why 'real time' Universal Credit was created. Welcome to 1887.

It may well have been the intention. However, there's many a slip twixt design and implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It keeps them off the unemployment line, that's all that matters.

Can't wait for Carney to offer up zero hour contracts as a reason to keep rates low.

Just out of interest, I looked up what the Worker's Party (well, Labour) had to say:

Under Labour's plans, workers on zero-hours contracts would:

  • not be obliged to be available outside contracted hours
  • be free to work for other employers
  • have a right to compensation if shifts are cancelled at short notice
  • have "clarity" from their employer about their employment status, terms and conditions
  • have the right to request a contract with a "minimum amount of work" after six months with an employer - this could only be refused if employers could prove their business could not operate any other way
  • have an automatic right to a fixed-hours contract after 12 months with an employer

First one is true anyway, I'd expect. Second completely misses the point - if you are free to work for other employers (on zero hours?) then you'll have clashes. Third and fourth are impossibly vague ('Compensation? No more shifts for you. 'Clarity?' Yes, you're fired. Clear?) Fifth and Sixth just mean you'll be sacked for a week every six months to a year.

I do wonder if the people coming up with this have the slightest understanding of the real world of low-paid jobs, as opposed to their life experience of never being financially insecure and being able to pick what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fifth and Sixth just mean you'll be sacked for a week every six months to a year.

Anecdotally the beeb are already doing something similar with junior production staff: periodically firing them (well, failing to renew their contracts) for a couple of weeks in order to prevent their own job security policies from ever applying. To be fair this seems to be an incidental outcome of senior production staff protecting their show's budget, rather than a coordinated strategy, but it has driven everyone I knew at the BBC who wasn't from a relatively well-off background to move into other careers while only those with financial security from their parents have been able to hang on long enough to reach more senior positions with greater job security. This, I think, is behind the general biases on show at the BBC: they're accidentally (?) selecting out as many of the young working class as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anecdotally the beeb are already doing something similar with junior production staff: periodically firing them (well, failing to renew their contracts) for a couple of weeks in order to prevent their own job security policies from ever applying. To be fair this seems to be an incidental outcome of senior production staff protecting their show's budget, rather than a coordinated strategy, but it has driven everyone I knew at the BBC who wasn't from a relatively well-off background to move into other careers while only those with financial security from their parents have been able to hang on long enough to reach more senior positions with greater job security. This, I think, is behind the general biases on show at the BBC: they're accidentally (?) selecting out as many of the young working class as possible.

The whole system - zero hours contracts, unpaid internships, tuition fees, and of course extortionate house prices and rents - all act as a filter. A far more deniable filter than the class system ever was, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

I do wonder if the people coming up with this have the slightest understanding of the real world of low-paid jobs......

Of course they do silly. They employ au pairs, maids and gardeners don't they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole system - zero hours contracts, unpaid internships, tuition fees, and of course extortionate house prices and rents - all act as a filter. A far more deniable filter than the class system ever was, as well.

Very deniable! I'm not even sure that the majority engaged in this kind of filtering are even actively aware of what they are doing, just like the majority of those who praise rampant HPI are often totally oblivious to the social ills that they therefore have a hand in. Cause and effect doesn't seem to be a consideration for any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is entrenched I can see virtually ALL newly created jobs and vacancies being zero hours contracts. As an employer you would be nuts not to do it. You may be competing against other total zero hour companies after all.

This si exactly how it works, the herd mentality is strong amongst companies and their peers. Same happened with migrant labour, there was a vanguard group of companies that went in first - they even had the unions in tow on their labour shopping trips, then the rest followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, I looked up what the Worker's Party (well, Labour) had to say:

Under Labour's plans, workers on zero-hours contracts would:

  • not be obliged to be available outside contracted hours
  • be free to work for other employers
  • have a right to compensation if shifts are cancelled at short notice
  • have "clarity" from their employer about their employment status, terms and conditions
  • have the right to request a contract with a "minimum amount of work" after six months with an employer - this could only be refused if employers could prove their business could not operate any other way
  • have an automatic right to a fixed-hours contract after 12 months with an employer

First one is true anyway, I'd expect. Second completely misses the point - if you are free to work for other employers (on zero hours?) then you'll have clashes. Third and fourth are impossibly vague ('Compensation? No more shifts for you. 'Clarity?' Yes, you're fired. Clear?) Fifth and Sixth just mean you'll be sacked for a week every six months to a year.

I do wonder if the people coming up with this have the slightest understanding of the real world of low-paid jobs, as opposed to their life experience of never being financially insecure and being able to pick what they do.

Zero hours contracts would make sense if the potential employee had the freedom to work their hours for any employer they chose. Being tied to the whims of ONE employer makes them little more than slavery, subsidised (and enforced) by the state/welfare system.

If the employer is worried about clashes and non-availability of those that they hold on zero hours contract then they should pay an appropriate amount of money to secure the services of the worker or offer them a full-time contract in return for exclusivity.. However, the current setup means that they can just offer whatever hours/rate they choose and demand that the worker conforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an employer you would be nuts not to do it. You may be competing against other total zero hour companies after all.

This is the logic of the free market, you can't even blame those involved since they have no choice but to compete within the existing system.

But there is a problem- if we want to create a society in which work is increasingly casualised and insecure we can't also have a society in which debt is the primary means by which money is created in that society- people without regular incomes are unlikely to be given credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three day week...topped up with working tax credits. :blink: Underemployment = benefit dependant = more government debt and less tax collected. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour had the Future Jobs Fund. Which was actually quite successful.

Young people got jobs, and they worked. But only for a maximum of 50 weeks, for if they did 52 they would be entitled to employment security.

I've never known security of employment.

Neither have most of my peers.

Whilst older people I know who have been made redundant once in 30+ years and received a handsome payoff. I've known people still in their teens suffer redundancy multiple times without any form of compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never known security of employment.

Neither have most of my peers.

So please, please explain once and for all why your generation is apparently so apathetic. Why aren't they constantly protesting and rioting about it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please, please explain once and for all why your generation is apparently so apathetic. Why aren't they constantly protesting and rioting about it all?

For the same reason that taxpayers didn't revolt en-masse when the government bailed out the banking system using their money, or why savers don't take to the streets despite suffering financial repression. People are generally uninformed about such matters and pretty apathetic about doing anything about things, even when they are aware.

Anyway, worrying about the way the financial/political world works is just about the last thing on your mind when you are young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason that taxpayers didn't revolt en-masse when the government bailed out the banking system using their money, or why savers don't take to the streets despite suffering financial repression. People are generally uninformed about such matters and pretty apathetic about doing anything about things, even when they are aware.

Anyway, worrying about the way the financial/political world works is just about the last thing on your mind when you are young.

In terms of awareness it's not just a case of putting two and two together between personal experiences and the political status quo, but also being aware that a significant proportion of their peers have similarly woken up to the root cause of their troubles. Once there is a critical mass both in terms of awareness of the issues and awareness of the critical mass itself then I would expect either major political reform or major trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please, please explain once and for all why your generation is apparently so apathetic. Why aren't they constantly protesting and rioting about it all?

Kettling, water canons and criminal records have put a kibosh to protest... for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kettling, water canons and criminal records have put a kibosh to protest... for now.

This.

On the subject of zero-hours, I just don't understand

  • Why they're legal
  • Why anyone would sign up for such a contract

Do the benefit rules require claimants to take one of these contracts if it comes up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

On the subject of zero-hours, I just don't understand

  • Why they're legal
  • Why anyone would sign up for such a contract

Do the benefit rules require claimants to take one of these contracts if it comes up?

....because some might like the flexibility it gives, it works both ways...they tell you when they want you, but you can tell them when you want to work.....but regular bills require a regular income so for most with high rent, mortgage or debt to pay it is very hard to work with. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

On the subject of zero-hours, I just don't understand

  • Why they're legal
  • Why anyone would sign up for such a contract

Do the benefit rules require claimants to take one of these contracts if it comes up?

From http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3886 :

Generally, as an employer, you are not obliged to offer work to workers on zero-hours contracts - but nor are they obliged to accept any work you offer. It's important to be aware of the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which state that workers on 'stand-by time', 'on-call time' and 'downtime' must still be paid the National Minimum Wage if they are at their place of work and required to be there. Similarly, such time is likely to count as 'working time' under the Working Time Regulations if the worker is required to be on-call at the place of work. This means that it's against the law to ask employees to 'clock off' during quiet periods but still remain on the premises.

If you are living at home with parents, or have a partner with a 'normal' job, then even zero-hours contracts are better than zero benefits (or just jobseekers).

And I suspect that benefit rules probably do require you to accept them, given their current 'sanction everyone' approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3886 :

Generally, as an employer, you are not obliged to offer work to workers on zero-hours contracts - but nor are they obliged to accept any work you offer. It's important to be aware of the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which state that workers on 'stand-by time', 'on-call time' and 'downtime' must still be paid the National Minimum Wage if they are at their place of work and required to be there. Similarly, such time is likely to count as 'working time' under the Working Time Regulations if the worker is required to be on-call at the place of work. This means that it's against the law to ask employees to 'clock off' during quiet periods but still remain on the premises.

If you are living at home with parents, or have a partner with a 'normal' job, then even zero-hours contracts are better than zero benefits (or just jobseekers).

And I suspect that benefit rules probably do require you to accept them, given their current 'sanction everyone' approach.

The Jobcentre can't require you to take a zero-hours job, nor to stay in one.

Hansard: "Esther McVey: ... JSA claimants are not required to apply for zero hour contract jobs and are not penalised if they leave such a job."

'Course, I'm not sure how many Jobcentre staff know that, or care even if they know, what with being under pressure to sanction claimants.

You'd have to be prepared to appeal - and in the meantime starve and get into arrears with rent and utilities - but at least you should win the appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.