[Misc] Zero hours contracts

[BensGrandad]

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.

So assuming that you were made redundant or sacked you would have received financial recompense which you wouldnt if sent home and then expected back next week.

 

[Is it PotG?]

So assuming that you were made redundant or sacked you would have received financial recompense which you wouldnt if sent home and then expected back next week.

Is that the norm, get the boot and get a load of cash?

 

[LamieRobertson]

Is that the norm, get the boot and get a load of cash?

The world of BG

 

[BensGrandad]

Is that the norm, get the boot and get a load of cash?

Unless it is for gross misconduct do you not get notice or money in lieu or has that all stopped since I retired.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Unless it is for gross misconduct do you not get notice or money in lieu or has that all stopped since I retired.

How long has the person concerned been employed? Are they on probation?

 

[BensGrandad]

How long has the person concerned been employed? Are they on probation?

I cannot go into specifics but it is the principal that an employer can do this that I object to. and feel is wrong and should be outlawed.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I cannot go into specifics but it is the principal that an employer can do this that I object to. and feel is wrong and should be outlawed.

Alright Jeremy. But whats your solution?

 

[BensGrandad]

Alright Jeremy. But whats your solution?

Simple when starting a job the employee makes a commitment to attend and work and similarly having agreed a weekly or monthly wage the employer makes a similar commitment to pay the man/woman provided they turn up for work. I am sure that many will not agree , as they are possibly employers, but it is my opinion.

 

[Balders]

OK thanks.

first response to OP and should have been left at that! Typical BG post - never acknowledges alternative opinions or takes on board various challenges that surround his supposition. A waste of 9 pages imho

 

[The Clamp]

Unfortunately your last sentence sums up the problem all too succinctly.

Which is the case in all types of employment.

ZHC staff actually have a lot more rights than their employer may admit to. Just takes a bit of research to assert those rights.
If you are unsure of your rights or feel ZHC's are unfair, don't accept a job on that basis. Not hard.

 

[The Clamp]

Unless it is for gross misconduct do you not get notice or money in lieu or has that all stopped since I retired.

You think you automatically get a decent/any payout for being made redundant!? You really don't have a clue.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

You think you automatically get a decent/any payout for being made redundant!? You really don't have a clue.

I was 364 days into my job when they let me go. Must have a word with BG solicitors as I am obviously due a fortune. I mean the company doesn't exist anymore but, hey.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So assuming that you were made redundant or sacked you would have received financial recompense which you wouldnt if sent home and then expected back next week.

Generally when you're sacked you get nothing .... that's the point ! BUT I was made redundant and yes, paid my notice. That's my point, I signed a contract that allowed for my employer to get rid of me with a months notice ( 1 weeks notice during the first 6 months ). People on zero hours contracts generally know their notice period is well .... zero.

Let's go back to you mythical scenario in your first post. A building company forecasts it has enough work on it's order book to employ say 10 staff for the next year. They hire those people - probably on contracts that allow them to be made redundant within a month. Half way through the year said company gets a surge in work and needs four extra heads on the tools. Problem being they know they can't afford to put them on the same contract as the previous hires because if they did they would probably have to make some people redundant at the end of the surge. So instead they hire four people on casual contracts, zero hour contracts. Those people know that - they accept the risk of being told at the end of a day not to come back the next.

If you outlaw those zero hour contracts do you think the company would have hired those four extra people ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Generally when you're sacked you get nothing .... that's the point ! BUT I was made redundant and yes, paid my notice. That's my point, I signed a contract that allowed for my employer to get rid of me with a months notice ( 1 weeks notice during the first 6 months ). People on zero hours contracts generally know their notice period is well .... zero.

Let's go back to you mythical scenario in your first post. A building company forecasts it has enough work on it's order book to employ say 10 staff for the next year. They hire those people - probably on contracts that allow them to be made redundant within a month. Half way through the year said company gets a surge in work and needs four extra heads on the tools. Problem being they know they can't afford to put them on the same contract as the previous hires because if they did they would probably have to make some people redundant at the end of the surge. So instead they hire four people on casual contracts, zero hour contracts. Those people know that - they accept the risk of being told at the end of a day not to come back the next.
S
If you outlaw those zero hour contracts do you think the company would have hired those four extra people ?

Why a zero hours contract? Hire them on a temporary contract with set hours, at least the employee will then know where he/she stands on a day-2-day basis for the duration of the contract.

 

[dazzer6666]

I cannot go into specifics but it is the principal that an employer can do this that I object to. and feel is wrong and should be outlawed.

Without the specifics you’re leaving yourself open to criticism........for example, did the individual know it was a zero hours contract and what that meant ?

 

[darkwolf666]

Which is the case in all types of employment.

ZHC staff actually have a lot more rights than their employer may admit to. Just takes a bit of research to assert those rights.
If you are unsure of your rights or feel ZHC's are unfair, don't accept a job on that basis. Not hard.

Again, nice idea refusing work if you have a choice. I guess some people don't have a plethora of job opportunities to pick from and feel pressured into taking what's offered...

 

[The Clamp]

Again, nice idea refusing work if you have a choice. I guess some people don't have a plethora of job opportunities to pick from and feel pressured into taking what's offered...

Just take a ZHC while you look for better, more stable work. Absolutely no different to registering with an employment agency or temping agency while you find better employment. If you can't find better, more stable work the problem is likely to be with you and not the employers.

 

[clapham_gull]

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.

But you are retired

There has always been casual labour, seasonal work, students who work to support their studies etc...

But when large High Street chains are doing it where the employee would actually prefer to have a full time job they are taking the piss.

Remember some of these stores were actually making the "part time" employers work exclusively for them.

Some of you "economic libertarians" do live in a fantasy land. A number of companies have been let off the hook and the state has to step in and make up the shortfall.

Effectively the state has been subsidising wages.

 

[darkwolf666]

Just take a ZHC while you look for better, more stable work. Absolutely no different to registering with an employment agency or temping agency while you find better employment. If you can't find better, more stable work the problem is likely to be with you and not the employers.

And if you are pushed into zero hours jobs and don’t have a choice for fear of sanctions from your job centre?

 

[beorhthelm]

Some of you "economic libertarians" do live in a fantasy land. A number of companies have been let off the hook and the state has to step in and make up the shortfall.

Effectively the state has been subsidising wages.

trouble is i havent seen a problem where minimum or fixed hours would be a solution. the problems are not from zero hours they are from employers taking the piss and taking advantage of those with few options or not inclined to complain. the state has not subsidised wages but suppressed wage demands, if you want to address that issue prehaps removing the state benefits would help?