[Misc] Zero hours contracts

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is it the workers fault that rhe boss has taken on 20 people during the busy time to earn money and only needs 2 at quiet times?

Yes.

I didn't have you down as a communist. Or [MENTION=232]Simster[/MENTION]:

"my solution is for the minimum wage on zero hour contracts to be double the contracted minimum wage. At least that way, employer flexibility is maintained whilst the vulnerable earn a lot more for the work they get."

When an employer has something to sell (employment) it is up to the employer to offer terms.

Of course, it is also the right of employees to get together and form an agreement to act together to get the best deal going. That is called being a 'trade unionist'.

It is an adversarial arrangement, but it worked well in the 50s and 60s. Then the right wing media made out unions were 'destroying' the UK. Then Thatcher came in and ****ed everyone up.

Now we have zero hour contracts.

Actually....m'eh....we get, on average, what we deserve and, on average, it is also what we want.

If you really don't want a zero hour contract, get an education or a trade. FFS.

 

[BensGrandad]

Perhaps my terminology is wrong having not been an employer for the last 17 years. My beef is somebody having a seemingly full time job being told you are not needed to morrow or the day after and receiving no pay through not working. I thought that was covered by zero hours contracts, as opposed to a normal employment contract.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Perhaps my terminology is wrong having not been an employer for the last 17 years. My beef is somebody having a seemingly full time job being told you are not needed to morrow or the day after and receiving no pay through not working. I thought that was covered by zero hours contracts, as opposed to a normal employment contract.

Their contract will describe what their employment status is, what rights both parties have to vary working hours, and what notice period each party has to give the other.

I’d suggest you recommend that the affected person reads it. Or you. Or even ask someone on here to have a look for them.

 

[dazzer6666]

Their contract will describe what their employment status is, what rights both parties have to vary working hours, and what notice period each party has to give the other.

I’d suggest you recommend that the affected person reads it. Or you. Or even ask someone on here to have a look for them.

Option 3, or option 1. In that order. Not option 2, as it won't help much.

 

[clapham_gull]

BG post something progressive and enlightened and still gets negative replies.

I totally agree although understand some workers like to work like that.

Starting a business is a risk, but if you get it right you reap the rewards.

Zero hours contracts push the burden of risk onto the employee. Also creates a level of bureaucracy where the state have to work out what the shortfall is in benefits.

Shouldn't be like that and I totally agree with BG.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

Now we have zero hour contracts.

but we didnt get zero hours "now" nor as a result of Thatcher. NHS and Department of Education have been using them forever, as banked staff or supply teachers. nothing really changed recently except the unions made it a cause du jour a few years ago. trades have always been on and off employment and factories have always used causal labour to pick up surplus work, the only difference was for a cople of decades we made hay as we manufactured for the empire before they realised they could make stuff themselves.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Works well for my lad, good money, flexible hours round his college work.

And my step daughter. Works in a pub and she gets loads of shifts when they are busy and less when they are not. Even allows her to turn down shifts as there's no contract and it fits around her A levels and BTECs.

When I was at college, I had a part time job at a supermarket. I was contracted to 17 hours per week with a fixed shift pattern that fitted around my college studies and burgeoning social life. On the odd occasion I needed to do something for college or socially that clashed with my agreed hours, I was able to swap my shift or book it off entirely because as a contracted member of staff I was entitled to holiday pay under employment law.

I was also paid sick pay for a month and a half when I broke my elbow and couldn’t work.

To each his own, but I think I got a better deal than either of your kids currently have on zero hours contracts.

 

[BensGrandad]

BG post something progressive and enlightened and still gets negative replies.

I totally agree although understand some workers like to work like that.

Starting a business is a risk, but if you get it right you reap the rewards.

Zero hours contracts push the burden of risk onto the employee. Also creates a level of bureaucracy where the state have to work out what the shortfall is in benefits.

Shouldn't be like that and I totally agree with BG.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

thanks for that I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that way.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

but we didnt get zero hours "now" nor as a result of Thatcher. NHS and Department of Education have been using them forever, as banked staff or supply teachers. nothing really changed recently except the unions made it a cause du jour a few years ago. trades have always been on and off employment and factories have always used causal labour to pick up surplus work, the only difference was for a cople of decades we made hay as we manufactured for the empire before they realised they could make stuff themselves.

Yes. Indeed. My bad. The docks being a classic example of ZHCs.... My narrative was flawed....perception is detrmined by context and the determinants of context are unfathomable. The OP's post is therefore extra surprising given BG's age.... he must have grown up with ZHCs .....oh well.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

I have a form of zero hours contract with a firm of solicitors. They offer me work and if I want it, I accept it. They tailor their offers to what I generally like doing and is rewarding to us both. I am their employee but it suits us both in that they offer me work when they have it available and I accept it when I am able or want to do it. There are 4 of us who are retired from our professions and it works well for all.

 

[BensGrandad]

I have never had a job or heard of a job where the boss could just say you are not needed tomorrow, I had a full time job and worked and got paid for ful time eveday, perhaps I have been lucky.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I have never had a job or heard of a job where the boss could just say you are not needed tomorrow, I had a full time job and worked and got paid for ful time eveday, perhaps I have been lucky.

But you've heard of "casual labour". It's the same thing, basically - under RTI PAYE systems, it's not possible legally to ask a pal (or a stranger) round to do a day's work and pay him on the spot, because you have to give HMRC notice in advance of who you're going to pay. But you can have casuals on the books all ready to get paid if they're needed.

The big benefit of zero hours contracts is that the non-compulsory aspect of the employment works both ways. The employer doesn't have to offer work to the employee, but if the employer does offer work the employee doesn't have to take it.

Where zero hours contracts are not appropriate is as a main wage for someone who needs a full time job. Anyone in that position should not take a zero hours contract, because they'd be better of staying on the dole until they can get a proper job. Just as no-one would ever have come off the dole for a few days casual work, you shouldn't come off the dole for zero hours contracts.

 

[BensGrandad]

I have heard of casual labour but it is NOT the same thing at all I am talking of a man having a full time job with all the benefits like holiday entitlement sick pay etc being told we dont need you tomorrow so that person is forced to have the day off and lose pay. That is what I believe is wrong and the employer should not be able to do and should have a responsibility to pay even the minimum wage for those hours even if it less than the workers normal rate of pay.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I have heard of casual labour but it is NOT the same thing at all I am talking of a man having a full time job with all the benefits like holiday entitlement sick pay etc being told we dont need you tomorrow so that person is forced to have the day off and lose pay. That is what I believe is wrong and the employer should not be able to do and should have a responsibility to pay even the minimum wage for those hours even if it less than the workers normal rate of pay.

With all respect, I think you've misunderstood something that this person has told you. the situation you describe doesn't seem possible. How for example would an employer calculate 'holiday entitlement' if you were not contracted to do work ANY hours

If they are casual (or truly 'zero hours') of course, they are obviously free to take any (unpaid) holiday that they wished.

 

[bluenitsuj]

With all respect, I think you've misunderstood something that this person has told you. the situation you describe doesn't seem possible. How for example would an employer calculate 'holiday entitlement' if you were not contracted to do work ANY hours

If they are casual (or truly 'zero hours') of course, they are obviously free to take any (unpaid) holiday that they wished.

People on zero hour contracts are legally entitled to paid holiday, based on hours already worked.

 

[Brovion]

My wife, since retiring from the NHS for health reasons, (it ground her down eventually) has been working as a care worker for a private agency. She's on a zero-hours contract - and she loves it as it means she can work when she wants to. They're not for everybody but they DO have a use. She'd hate it if she went back to the 'old days' of having to work a contracted number of hours a week.

So no, I don't want to see them banned.

 

[BensGrandad]

My wife, since retiring from the NHS for health reasons, (it ground her down eventually) has been working as a care worker for a private agency. She's on a zero-hours contract - and she loves it as it means she can work when she wants to. They're not for everybody but they DO have a use. She'd hate it if she went back to the 'old days' of having to work a contracted number of hours a week.

So no, I don't want to see them banned.

I can fully understand your wife's situation and many like her but what would have been her views had she gone to work and been told we are short of cash so we have no work for you for the rest of this week take 3 days off unpaid.

 

[Brovion]

I can fully understand your wife's situation and many like her but what would have been her views had she gone to work and been told we are short of cash so we have no work for you for the rest of this week take 3 days off unpaid.

When we needed her money - she'd have been upset and we'd have gone short. Now the boot is very much on the other foot. She often says "I only want to do one days' work next week". They reply "Well your money will be down then", and she says "I don't give a toss, it's only a bit of pin money and something to keep me active." (I'm paraphrasing)

Like I said, they're not for everybody. But there's talk of banning them across the board, and if that happens they'll be losers as well as winners.

EDIT: I refer you to dsr-burnley's post (#72) which sums it up very well.

 

[Stoo82]

People on zero hours are entiteled to paid holiday. Its based on the average hours worked in the last month, assuming they have worked for the company the correct amount of time.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I can fully understand your wife's situation and many like her but what would have been her views had she gone to work and been told we are short of cash so we have no work for you for the rest of this week take 3 days off unpaid.

Probably exactly the same the three times I've gone in to work and have been told my services are no longer required so cheerio. Not nice but it can happen in any job.