Zero Hours Contracts

[VeryMeanReversion]

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?

My Mrs has a zero-hours contract for min wage at a childrens nursery. I was checking the contract before it was signed a couple of days ago.

The holiday is pro-rata based on contracted hours i.e. zero.

There is a notice period (which is meaningless on a zero hours contract)

The are some security checks involved which you are supposed to pay back if you leave with a year (meaningless on a zero hours contract).

The nursery basically want their staff on call at any time then come in for as little as an hour at a time. Pointless if you have to drive there.

However, my Mrs just says no to anything shorter than 2 hours, only works shifts she feels like doing. Elderly parents need looking after at unpredictable times. So zero hours contract is fine in this case.

[motch]

....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.

If a living wage can be obtained by the addition of top up benefits then it would be ace for some people - Especially ace for the govt figures. Not so good for the growing benefits bill though.

For someone not entitled to any benefits/hand outs and trying to run a house alone - not so good. (i'd assume)

[@contradevian]

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

We have a Whig landowners government where being poor is your own fault too!

[winkie]

If a living wage can be obtained by the addition of top up benefits then it would be ace for some people - Especially ace for the govt figures. Not so good for the growing benefits bill though.

For someone not entitled to any benefits/hand outs and trying to run a house alone - not so good. (i'd assume)

Check this out:...http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/Taxcredits/people-advise-others/entitlement-tables/index.htm

Some have to have two jobs, very often self-employed work.

....because the cost of living is so high for many people, those with high outgoings they are unable to reduce, benefits make the pain slighly more bearable....one way or another the state would have to subsidise someone, some firm, pension, bank, landowner or themselves when the cost of living is so high and certain people get paid more than they deserve whilst others get paid less than they deserve.

Some are at work not working but can't leave, some work extra hours for no extra, and some get paid lots but don't do any paid work at all.

[Ulfar]

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.

To solve the issue of zero hours contracts, this should be extended to people on Standby away from the place of business.

If employers had something for people on standby and give them defined shift hours then the abuse of these contracts would mostly disappear.

[Democorruptcy]

Britain is leading the way in so-called "zero-hours" contracts that keep employees available but with no guarantee of work -- and other countries are watching with interest.

Britain's unemployment rate of under seven percent is one of the lowest in the European Union, and Cameron's government says the contracts add flexibility that the British economy needs.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/britains-zero-hour-contracts-eyed-040358830.html

The EU have told us to add Drugs and Prostitution to GDP. We thank them with a way to fiddle the unemployment figures.

[wonderpup]

Britain is leading the way in so-called "zero-hours" contracts that keep employees available but with no guarantee of work

'Leading the way'? The way to where exactly? To a population of serfs too insecure to even be eligible for the credit that now forms the backbone of the 'economy'?

Zero hours employment and an economy based on debt fueled consumption make very poor bedfellows.

[MrPin]

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.

No! I've been laid off several times over, always with the fine offer of a minimal payoff!

[Saving For a Space Ship]

What next .....Zero House Contracts ?