How can a zero hours contract be valid in english law?

[otters]

8 hours ago, Popsock said:

Discussions like this really seem to boil down to this - what does a society do with stupid people?  In any society there's a large number of relatively stupid people, and there's nothing wrong in that, it's normal. Now these people can have great work ethics; they can be highly creative; they just aren't academic and maybe don't have many skills. It seems to me that our society doesn't really know what to do with them all. Especially as we have a benefits system that pays as much as minimum wage. Especially as we have unlimited immigrants coming in that are happy to do the "degrading" jobs. So what do you do with all those Brits who don't want to do those jobs, yet have little or nothing better to offer? The current answer seems to be to fiddle and tweak the system to kick the ball down the field for future generations to get a grip with. 

Skills what an ambiguous word,

It can mean someone who has done a 2 day course on scheme, passed a multi choice exam, after 4 goes, and is considered more skillful, because he has a piece of worthless paper than a person who has been doing that job all his life.

[wonderpup]

Quote

I thought they got sanctioned if they declined work

This gives rise to a Zen like paradox; If a man on a zero hours contract is offered no work he is both employed and unemployed at the same time. Which makes his status as a claiment of jobseekers allowance an almost philisophical question that may well lie beyond the intellectual capacities of his job coach.

 

 

[StainlessSteelCat]

5 hours ago, otters said:

Skills what an ambiguous word,

It can mean someone who has done a 2 day course on scheme, passed a multi choice exam, after 4 goes, and is considered more skillful, because he has a piece of worthless paper than a person who has been doing that job all his life.

 

 

Quite, you can be academically bright - but still useless in the workplace. In fact, a recent PhD may even be a strong marker i.e. you are very specialised, but have never worked in anything like a normal workplace, had to demonstrate emotional intelligence etc. 

On what to do with the "useless eaters", it's clear to me that the existing benefits system is designed to help manage the transition to a work-less society, starting with those at the bottom of the skills pyramid. The trouble is tptb have clearly created some perverse incentives, and the education system and wider society has no clue to how educate these individuals to help them have a meaningful life. Goodness knows, post religion we all struggle with it, but take away work as well - and most have no clue what to do except watch telly or play on the gaming machine all day (assuming you can afford the electricity). What a waste of human potential. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by StainlessSteelCat

[One-percent]

5 hours ago, StainlessSteelCat said:

Quite, you can be academically bright - but still useless in the workplace. In fact, a recent PhD may even be a strong marker i.e. you are very specialised, but have never worked in anything like a normal workplace, had to demonstrate emotional intelligence etc. 

On what to do with the "useless eaters", it's clear to me that the existing benefits system is designed to help manage the transition to a work-less society, starting with those at the bottom of the skills pyramid. The trouble is tptb have clearly created some perverse incentives, and the education system and wider society has no clue to how educate these individuals to help them have a meaningful life. Goodness knows, post religion we all struggle with it, but take away work as well - and most have no clue what to do except watch telly or play on the gaming machine all day (assuming you can afford the electricity). What a waste of human potential. 

If your assumptions here are correct, the easiest way to manage it is to tell the truth. Then, everyone can consider their options and plan.

im not convinced however for a couple of reasons. First, the rising of the retirement age.  Second, the encouragement of mass immigration 

[wonderpup]

Quote

On what to do with the "useless eaters", it's clear to me that the existing benefits system is designed to help manage the transition to a work-less society, starting with those at the bottom of the skills pyramid. The trouble is tptb have clearly created some perverse incentives, and the education system and wider society has no clue to how educate these individuals to help them have a meaningful life. Goodness knows, post religion we all struggle with it, but take away work as well - and most have no clue what to do except watch telly or play on the gaming machine all day (assuming you can afford the electricity). What a waste of human potential. 

But isn't the dream to turn us all into 'useless eaters' at some point? At least this is what the Tech evangelists seem to be selling; a world where most of the work is done by robots and AI and the humans just do what they want.

The probem is that they are selling this dream of unlimited leisure time to people who barely know what to do with themselves on a wet sunday afternoon.

If AI and robots really do start to take over a lot of jobs this will be a big problem because you will end up with millions of people who have no money, no purpose and no future with lots of time to consider the implications of this reality in all it's gory details.

If I wanted to grow social unrest this is the soil I would be looking to plant the seeds in. Perhaps instead of investing millions into trying to duplicate the efforts of the private sector to create mass technological unemployment via AI the Governments of the west should be investing in research as to the possible social blowback should those private efforts succeed.

Surely it's a wonderful irony that the EU is investing millions into a project to artifically duplicate the human brain in an attempt to commoditise intelligence when all over Europe we currently have millions of actual human brains whose commodity value has already  fallen to zero leaving them unemployed.

Edited March 17, 2017 by wonderpup

[knock out johnny]

12 minutes ago, wonderpup said:

But isn't the dream to turn us all into 'useless eaters' at some point? At least this is what the Tech evangelists seem to be selling; a world where most of the work is done by robots and AI and the humans just do what they want.

The probem is that they are selling this dream of unlimited leisure time to people who barely know what to do with themselves on a wet sunday afternoon.

If AI and robots really do start to take over a lot of jobs this will be a big problem because you will end up with millions of people who have no money, no purpose and no future with lots of time to consider the implications of this reality in all it's gory details.

If I wanted to grow social unrest this is the soil I would be looking to plant the seeds in. Perhaps instead of investing millions into trying to duplicate the efforts of the private sector to create mass technological unemployment via AI the Governments of the west should be investing in research as to the possible social blowback should those private efforts succeed.

Surely it's a wonderful irony that the EU is investing millions into a project to artifically duplicate the human brain in an attempt to commoditise intelligence when all over Europe we currently have millions of actual human brains whose commodity value has already  fallen to zero leaving them unemployed.

Of course the sunny uplands of Great Brexittania will provide fulfilling and well paid employment for all. 

Yet another whine about the EU. 

Tedious. 

Edited March 17, 2017 by knock out johnny

[frozen_out]

.

Edited March 17, 2017 by frozen_out

[billybong]

14 hours ago, wonderpup said:

But isn't the dream to turn us all into 'useless eaters' at some point? At least this is what the Tech evangelists seem to be selling; a world where most of the work is done by robots and AI and the humans just do what they want.

The probem is that they are selling this dream of unlimited leisure time to people who barely know what to do with themselves on a wet sunday afternoon.

If AI and robots really do start to take over a lot of jobs this will be a big problem because you will end up with millions of people who have no money, no purpose and no future with lots of time to consider the implications of this reality in all it's gory details.

If I wanted to grow social unrest this is the soil I would be looking to plant the seeds in. Perhaps instead of investing millions into trying to duplicate the efforts of the private sector to create mass technological unemployment via AI the Governments of the west should be investing in research as to the possible social blowback should those private efforts succeed.

Surely it's a wonderful irony that the EU is investing millions into a project to artifically duplicate the human brain in an attempt to commoditise intelligence when all over Europe we currently have millions of actual human brains whose commodity value has already  fallen to zero leaving them unemployed.

 

My highlight.

For the rest of the week as well - that's already happening and I guess it's mainly as a result of 16 hours a week people and out and out benefiter people filling their spare time visiting coffee bars and Primark places and so on.  Businesses like it because they make as much money during the week days as they do during the weekend days.  Of course increasingly nobody can get parked pretty much anywhere any day of the week as these days the spaces are all out competed by 16 hourers, benefiters and so on etc.

The zero hours contract system isn't that far removed from the old dockers standing in line for a days employment day after day except those days there were far cheaper houses and there were council houses so I guess one days pay went a lot further - and you didn't have to stand in the line if you didn't want to.  There was no contractual obligation pretend or otherwise.  They've more or less just extended that old system for the dockers etc to far more jobs.

Edited March 18, 2017 by billybong

[wonderpup]

Quote

Of course the sunny uplands of Great Brexittania will provide fulfilling and well paid employment for all. 

Yet another whine about the EU. 

Tedious. 

My point was not really EU specific- the UK government has also invested in AI projects like self drive cars.

My point is that it's not the role of the state to invest in labour saving technologies- that's a role for the private sector. The state should be investing instead in the research required to understand the social implications of those technologies and developing some kind of coherent response.

And it is a bit perverse of the EU to be spending a billion euros trying to develop artificial brains when that money could be better spent trying to help the millions of non artificial brains who are currently unemployed. How exactly will it improve the lives of those unemployed people if they find themselves not only competing with cheap labour from other countries but also with AI systems that have been funded by their own nations taxes?

In any case history shows that the ROI in tech innovation is- from a state funded perspective- abysmall- all too often the  profit is made by  private sector companies that benefit from state funded research but then fail to pay any tax on those profits.

So in this scenario Joe Public gets shafted twice- first on the research ROI and second when the tech they have helped to develop via their taxes comes after their jobs.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by wonderpup

[Futuroid]

England has a long and rich history of keeping its working population on a short and tightly tied leash.

I suggest you google "Feudalism". It may prove useful when planning your future.

[disenfranchised]

With growing income disparity and under-employment, we are gradually drifting towards a time when the well off rather than just the filthy rich will have domestic servants again.

It's already heading that way with "nannies" and "cleaning ladies" and so on.

[lid]

I must have missed the bit where the EU banned zero hours contracts

[Futuroid]

14 minutes ago, lid said:

I must have missed the bit where the EU banned zero hours contracts

They didn't need to - every other country (except the UK) has already restricted or banned them.

https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/

If they HAD tried to ban them, can you guess which country would have vetoed it?

(Clue: It rhymes with UK)

Just like the UK wanted to "opt out" of the working time directive, you can bet your last increasingly worthless pound that your betters would have made the case for the need for flexibility.

"Work sets you free", Iain Duncan Smith, 1941.

[SarahBell]

On 16/03/2017 at 11:49 PM, wonderpup said:

This gives rise to a Zen like paradox; If a man on a zero hours contract is offered no work he is both employed and unemployed at the same time. Which makes his status as a claiment of jobseekers allowance an almost philisophical question that may well lie beyond the intellectual capacities of his job coach.

 

 

But in theory this is what UC is for. To instantly fill in the lulls in ZHC.

[lid]

In a party conference speech in Brighton in 1995, Tony Blair said that if elected Labour would bring, "and end to zero hours contracts."

He said:

"A Labour government will be part of the European Social Chapter. Part-time employees will no longer be treated as second class citizens. There will be an end to zero-hours contracts."

[billybong]

The zero hours concept at work had only just started to come into the public arena in 1995.  At that time in the middle of that recession Blair's speech would resound a bit like Brown's no more house price boom and bust did in the context of the Conservative's inept handling of the economy in those days.

They've all been at it over the years since but the zero hours numbers still increase relentlessly year on year.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/a-brief-history-of-politicians-promising-to-end-zero-hours-contracts

Edited March 18, 2017 by billybong

[Futuroid]

25 minutes ago, billybong said:

They've all been at it over the years since but the zero hours numbers still increase relentlessly year on year.

I blame the EU.

[billybong]

11 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I blame the EU.

No doubt it's made its own special contribution along with UK politicians and corporates.  Ultimately UK people are between a rock and a hard place firstly with the eu and then the way the UK itself is run.

[StainlessSteelCat]

On 17/03/2017 at 7:38 AM, One-percent said:

If your assumptions here are correct, the easiest way to manage it is to tell the truth. Then, everyone can consider their options and plan.

im not convinced however for a couple of reasons. First, the rising of the retirement age.  Second, the encouragement of mass immigration 

 

Good points. I don't think they have all the answers figured out, and I suspect there's an element of whackamole with the emerging problems.  I guess they figure that if people are working during this transition period, then they might as well keep doing so rather than have them retire as at least it's cheaper.  Mass immigration, I think that's mostly a "got to keep GDP up" kind of play. 

[wonderpup]

Quote

But in theory this is what UC is for. To instantly fill in the lulls in ZHC.

In theory yes- but in practice we have this:
 

Quote

 

The Government’s new Universal Credit welfare system is “punishing the working poor” with new sanctions on people who work full time for low pay, academics have warned.

Universal Credit combines various benefits into one payment and is being rolled out to people both in work and out of work.

But low-paid workers are expected to look for more hours or take on extra jobs to get more cash as a condition of the in-work wage top-ups, and report to regular jobcentre appointments to prove their activities.

People working under 35 hours are expected to find more – meaning even full-time workers on zero hours contracts who sometimes end up with fewer hours in a week can face conditionality.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-punishing-the-working-poor-with-sanctions-in-new-universal-credit-system-a6985461.html

So if I understand this correctly if your zero hours contract fails to deliver 35 hours in a week you must look for work elsewhere in order to qualify for a wage 'top up'- which reads like a passage from a Franz Kafka novel to me.

After all if you could get those hours from other sources of employment you would not need the top up in the first place- right?

What am I not understanding here? Or is the system really this perverse?

 

[One-percent]

18 minutes ago, wonderpup said:

In theory yes- but in practice we have this:
 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-punishing-the-working-poor-with-sanctions-in-new-universal-credit-system-a6985461.html

So if I understand this correctly if your zero hours contract fails to deliver 35 hours in a week you must look for work elsewhere in order to qualify for a wage 'top up'- which reads like a passage from a Franz Kafka novel to me.

After all if you could get those hours from other sources of employment you would not need the top up in the first place- right?

What am I not understanding here? Or is the system really this perverse?

 

I think what might happen is a reversal.  Employers have realised that they can employ people on poor contracts, duck their responsibilities, not pay NI, etc as the gubberment (aka the taxpayer) will subsidise the rest.  If potential employees can only get top ups by working 35 hours pw, then those employers trying to work on 16 hour and zero hour contracts might find they cannot attract staff.  It would not make financial sense for anyone to work to these derisory terms.  I would argue that what we see is an unintended concequence of wtc  

[Futuroid]

3 hours ago, billybong said:

No doubt it's made its own special contribution along with UK politicians and corporates.  Ultimately UK people are between a rock and a hard place firstly with the eu and then the way the UK itself is run.

So how exactly do you explain that Germany and France - to take two examples - don't permit zero hours contracts? 

As most other EU member states have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to ban or heavily restrict the use of zero hours contracts and stay within EU law. The problem is national law.

Our own sovereign parliament has made the choice to not ban or restrict them. I think you'll find the problems are ingrained in the UK, which is rather unfortunate, since a crapton of employment rights will be hitting the skids as we exit the EU.

[One-percent]

3 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

So how exactly do you explain that Germany and France - to take two examples - don't permit zero hours contracts? 

As most other EU member states have demonstrated, it is perfectly possible to ban or heavily restrict the use of zero hours contracts and stay within EU law. The problem is national law.

Our own sovereign parliament has made the choice to not ban or restrict them. I think you'll find the problems are ingrained in the UK, which is rather unfortunate, since a crapton of employment rights will be hitting the skids as we exit the EU.

The problem is that the uk is still run on social class lines coupled to successive governments who are happy to,screw over ordinary working people to please their friends in the city and corporations 

[knock out johnny]

2 hours ago, One-percent said:

The problem is that the uk is still run on social class lines coupled to successive governments who are happy to,screw over ordinary working people to please their friends in the city and corporations 

I agree, but it'll all get better once we've taken back control - we just need to be patient

[One-percent]

Just now, knock out johnny said:

I agree, but it'll all get better once we've taken back control - we just need to be patient

No it won't but at least the barstewards won't be able to hide behind "it's not us, it's that nasty European Parliament that made us do it" line   For the first time in 25 years, the uk parliament will be held accountable for their actions