Zero-hours contracts. Are we, the consumers, partly to blame?

[beorhthelm]

Given the tax-payer tops up the Tesco low-paid with tax-credits we get a hit as well. Indirectly we're paying more for our groceries than the advertised price. Why don't Tescos just charge the right price for their product, pay the staff the right wages and stop silly charade.

they do. you just think that pay should be higher despite the economics of supply/demand and costing of staff. this idea that companies get subsidised by tax credits doesnt hold any water as they are not privy to the staff's financial situation. they pay market rate, as they have always done before tax credits were invented.

as to the original questions, i wonder how many against zero hours are aware that health service and councils have used them for decades? the ironic story on this is that Miliband's local authority employees >2000 odd staff on zero hours. so, are we saying thats OK, but in the retail industry its wrong? or in all cases its wrong, in which case who suffers if jobs with flexibility of zero hours are removed from the job market? or do we realise that there's nothing wrong with a zero hours contract in principle, but theres a lot of poor practice and unfair clauses going into those and other contracts, and address that issue instead?

to the more general point, are consumers responsible for ever and pressure on margins, the answer is yes we are. we all want something cheaper and most want something today, and tomorrow and the next day, but only have so much money to spread around, so tend to prefer cheap and cheerful to quality with a higher price. though the nature of financial markets with quarterly reporting and insessant focus on growth for the sake of it does also shoulder some blame here.

 

[The Spanish]

No. No we are not. It's the banks and the government jthat are to blame.
The banks and the governments who promote and reward corporate venality above all else.
They have created a culture where the individual counts for nothing except to pay exaggerated interest rates for mortgages that have replaced social housing in an uncaring society and to pay for vastly over-inflated energy costs in order to return a profit to "the shareholders". Your election vote has little value as the parties represent their own venal self interest above all else, while your vote as a shareholder counts for nothing against those of the corporate bullies and pension funds.

Suggesting that we take the blame is just another step in the journey.

I couldn't agree less. Tubby is right, we as punters have to take responsibility. Blaming governments and banks is a cop out.

 

[Buzzer]

How do we as consumers know whether people are on zero-hours contracts or not and how do we, say take our custom away from outsourced zero-hour contract services provided in the public sector such as at hospitals?

The simple answer is that employers are using this as a very cheap way to exploit the lowest paid workers. They're effectively bonded slavery.

 

[Buzzer]

i blame the unions more than consumers for zero hour contracts

The vast majority of people in zero hour contracts are not in any union. That's precisely why they are so prodigious. Just my opinion but I reckon if any study was done of who was on zero hour contracts it would a minimum wage immigrant. Whether you agree that immigrants should be here or not is a side issue, the employers know that these types of workers have no collective bargaining power whatsoever and so screw them. That's not the fault of the unions although I would like to see a massive campaign by the TUC to outlaw zero-hour contracts.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

they do. you just think that pay should be higher despite the economics of supply/demand and costing of staff. this idea that companies get subsidised by tax credits doesnt hold any water as they are not privy to the staff's financial situation. they pay market rate, as they have always done before tax credits were invented.

as to the original questions, i wonder how many against zero hours are aware that health service and councils have used them for decades? the ironic story on this is that Miliband's local authority employees >2000 odd staff on zero hours. so, are we saying thats OK, but in the retail industry its wrong? or in all cases its wrong, in which case who suffers if jobs with flexibility of zero hours are removed from the job market? or do we realise that there's nothing wrong with a zero hours contract in principle, but theres a lot of poor practice and unfair clauses going into those and other contracts, and address that issue instead?

to the more general point, are consumers responsible for ever and pressure on margins, the answer is yes we are. we all want something cheaper and most want something today, and tomorrow and the next day, but only have so much money to spread around, so tend to prefer cheap and cheerful to quality with a higher price. though the nature of financial markets with quarterly reporting and insessant focus on growth for the sake of it does also shoulder some blame here.

Aldi and Lidl actually pay their workers a higher hourly rate than the big 4 supermarket chains. The latest trend from the big 4 is to offer 8 hours a week contracts for staff taken on to pick orders for home shopping deliveries. Go into any big Morrisons , Tesco , Asda or Sainsburys throughout the UK and 90% of the workers are part timers.

 

[Garage_Doors]

How can anyone get on the housing ladder when on zero hours contracts

Every Self employed person is on zero hours but no contract and they manage to get mortgages.
Just need to prove over given period that you can earn the required money on past history.

 

[jimbob5]

i blame the unions more than consumers for zero hour contracts

go on then. Explain.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Nonsense. I am government light but in this case there is a case for regulation. What we have is a function of capitalism

 

[wellquickwoody]

No. No we are not. It's the banks and the government jthat are to blame.
The banks and the governments who promote and reward corporate venality above all else.
They have created a culture where the individual counts for nothing except to pay

exaggerated interest rates for mortgages

that have replaced social housing in an uncaring society and to pay for vastly over-inflated energy costs in order to return a profit to "the shareholders". Your election vote has little value as the parties represent their own venal self interest above all else, while your vote as a shareholder counts for nothing against those of the corporate bullies and pension funds.

Suggesting that we take the blame is just another step in the journey.

Really, interest rates?

Whilst there is an element of truth in your opinion, it is impossible to overlook our throwaway society. Very few people buy good quality, classic clothing that will last for years, but prefer to buy total tat from Tesco and the like and dispose of it after one season. Only owning something for six months means that price is king, leading to lower margins etc. Any mainstream retailer trying to offer good quality at a higher price is losing out as the nosedive in profits at M&S proves.

 

[severnside gull]

Really, interest rates?

Whilst there is an element of truth in your opinion, it is impossible to overlook our throwaway society. Very few people buy good quality, classic clothing that will last for years, but prefer to buy total tat from Tesco and the like and dispose of it after one season. Only owning something for six months means that price is king, leading to lower margins etc. Any mainstream retailer trying to offer good quality at a higher price is losing out as the nosedive in profits at M&S proves.

But who is to blame?
My argument will always be that low prices and poor quality are driven by retailers in search of the fast buck. Do customers really "demand" extended opening hours or have have they simply become inured to using what is offered? Do we insist on milk costing us less than it costs the farmer to produce or is that simply the retailer leading us where they want us to go?

We can hit ourselves over the head if we want but the vast majority of decisions in life, including many of those relating to what "we want" are taken for us and we simply buy-in to the marketing line because the options have either been taken away or made inaccessible.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Odd to see you swallowing their transparent propaganda and siding with the forces of oppression on this one HT.

I see your point.

 

[yxee]

I don't see why blame need be attributed. It's a way of purchasing labour. Can anyone explain to me why zero hours contracts are evil without invoking a philosophical argument about redistribution of wealth?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Out of interest are any posters actually on a zero-hours contract? And how old are you? I can imagine if you're a youth flitting around maybe it has little impact but what if you're older and the bread-winner maybe it's quite stressful?

 

[Baldseagull]

I don't see why blame need be attributed. It's a way of purchasing labour. Can anyone explain to me why zero hours contracts are evil without invoking a philosophical argument about redistribution of wealth?

Not all zero hour contracts are evil, however, some demand that the person on 0 guaranteed hours is available at all times with 12 hours notice, thus preventing them from taking up any other casual contract or ad hoc labour offer.

Edit: forgot to add that this type of contract will be made illegal.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Do we insist on milk costing us less than it costs the farmer to produce or is that simply the retailer leading us where they want us to go?

milk costs approx 28p to produce. a £1 4pint is therefore costing approx 61p to produce. where exactly is this "milk costing less than the cost" coming from?

interestingly the big supermarkets pay more than Coop and a whole range of independent contracts

but you do have a point, do we always ask for all these services, features etc? not always, though if they wheren't being used they'd soon stop. but then we didnt ask for a great many products before they existed and now think of them as unavoidable for everyday life. its called progress.

 

[Machiavelli]

“The sort of employment being offered now, including zero-hours contracts, makes it quite scary for people going into the retail business,” he said. “All of us, as consumers, have to take some blame for that, because it is consumer pressure that leads to margins being cut and everybody looking at how they can do that, and I am afraid that employment is one of the affected areas. ”

Sir John Randall (Tory MP Uxbridge and South Ruislip)

http://www.theguardian.com/business...il-working-conditions-shuts-randalls-uxbridge

I agree with him.

I disagree with him and, therefore, with you
I loathe this idea that we're consumers, and it's through our actions as consumers that we ultimately act. Democracy broadly entails the power or strength of the demos, and it's as such that we should act. So, we can be blamed in that democratically we've enabled it, and allowed it to prolong and extend itself. The companies that deploy such schemes are ultimately to blame, as they lobby to diminish workers rights and extend the areas within which zero-hour and other precarious contracts can be implemented. Then again, as a demos, we're also to blame for letting this happen.
That said, I'm not against zero-hour contracts per se. For certain stages of people's life, it suits them. It's when they're used as a tool, and over-reach -- as they quite clearly do now -- that they become problematic.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's not in any company's interest to have unhappy staff because they're less-productive than happy staff. I personally think that, by and large, employers want to pay a fair salary but they're mindful after the crash that they have to keep control of costs too.

There seems to be a lot of talk of ideology and exploitation on this thread when I see it being more about simple cost.

Lastly, the way in which we buy goods and services has changed. People don't expect to have to wait around for things, they usually want it now. People are also very wary of being ripped off, consumer are much less trusting, so it doesn't surprise me that an unpredictable consumer market results in a volatile labour market.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

milk costs approx 28p to produce. a £1 4pint is therefore costing approx 61p to produce. where exactly is this "milk costing less than the cost" coming from?

interestingly the big supermarkets pay more than Coop and a whole range of independent contracts

but you do have a point, do we always ask for all these services, features etc? not always, though if they wheren't being used they'd soon stop. but then we didnt ask for a great many products before they existed and now think of them as unavoidable for everyday life. its called progress.

What does packaging, distribution / transportation cost and is that factored into that 28p?

The you have the sellers costs, they have rent on a property, heating and lighting costs, staffing costs, shrinkage (theft, going pat sell by dates and damage, etc) before you even get to the shop having to make a profit

So how much of that £1 is left after all possible deductions?

 

[beorhthelm]

What does packaging, distribution / transportation cost and is that factored into that 28p?

none, its the farmers cost. all the rest of it is the wholesalers and retails problem. i've no doubt the final margin is slim to non-existant on a £1 4 pinter, but thats the supermarket's business. the point is that, contrary to claims, farmers are getting paid more than the cost of production (a good 10%+ for supplying the major supermarkets) and that the shop price is far above the production cost.

 

[looney]

Nice bit of slight of hand by the grauniad. If the issue is employment then the issue is the supply and demand for labour. Mass immigration makes workers cheap, thats supply. Any blame on "Consumers" is an abstracted false dichotomy.