Oliver Sutton Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 About 1.4m on them according to the ONS. So probably a lot more. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/30/zero-hours-contracts-uk-over-one-million-people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyme2 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Difficult to know the truth to any stats nowadays, fake job listings, discguide unemployment via self employment to maintain benefits. The only way is up. Advertised salaries fall £1,800 http://www.hrgrapevine.com/markets/hr/article/2014-04-29-advertised-salaries-fall-1800#.U2DKG6JB-VE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 More facts and figures from the ONerouS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giraffe Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giraffe Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 This is obviously why 'real time' Universal Credit was created. Welcome to 1887. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rentbug Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 .... 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyme2 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Three day week...topped up with working tax credits. Underemployment = benefit dependant = more government debt and less tax collected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qetesuesi Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtomsilver2 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.