[Misc] Zero hours contracts

[The Clamp]

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

Keep looking for a better job. That's what you're supposed to do on jobseekers anyway.

 

[Hamilton]

I believe that these should be made illegal for workers.

If a person is laid off because the firm have no work it is not the fault of the worker but that of the employer for (a) not finding sufficient work (b) not making provisions for quiet times. Most employees have regular financial commitment that they cannot avoid ie rent or mortgage council tax etc How can they pay that if they are laid off for 2 or 3 days in a week? I believe that when somebody is employed it should be a financial commitment that the employer is forced to honour.

Firstly, I am no fan of the way that zero hours contracts have been abused by many firms for whom it is seen as a process which excuses them from proper planning. It is lazy business.

However, I take issue with your over-simplified view of business, that it is "the fault of the employer for (a) not finding sufficient work (b) not making provisions for quiet times." Many businesses are seasonal and many suffer the effects of economic uncertainty with order books changing on a regular basis. Contrary to popular belief, most people running businesses are not earning fat cat salaries, but trying to manage going concerns that will build over time. During that time, the huge majority care about what happens to those that work with and for them. Business owners lay awake at night thinking about how to find sufficient work; they want to create jobs. The last thing they want is to let the business fail.

Yes, every business owner is working towards a pay off somewhere down the line, but that is the risk that they take. For most people running businesses in this country, their livelihoods and homes are also tied up in the business. That means they need as many tools to help them do this as possible. Are ZH contracts right? Yes and no. It depends upon the employer.

Too many people simply revert to the attitude that it is their employer's duty to look after them. Of course there is an accountability, but when it comes to accepting the changing nature of business and the impact that can have on jobs, everyone has to accept responsibility and not play the victim.

 

[Goldstone1976]

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.

This was presumably in that period of time when the requirement for time served to be able to claim employment rights was 1 Year, rather than the prior and subsequent period being 2 years?

Employers exploiting the law to dismiss folk one day before they gain increased rights is as low as it gets. Sure, business is tough sometimes and, imo, employers need to be able to have the ability to flex their workforce; but this ability should come with some considerable pain (and moral reflection).

Personally, I don’t hire anyone unless I am 100% certain that I can employ them for a minimum of 9 months. I’d like to say that that period was, say, 3 years, but I just don’t have anything like that amount of visibility of revenue. If I can’t see 9 months of increased revenue with 100% certainty, I use temps - preferring to take a margin hit, rather than potentially jerk someone’s (and their family’s) life around.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Not quite the same thing contract wise, (I was employed via an agency, rather than directly, under a ZH contract) but I spent a year after college, working for a council's parks and gardens dept and was in a situation like this. You'd get told Friday afternoon that you had five days work the following week, but any day it rained, you'd get a call at 7.00am standing you down. From the council's POV made perfect sense - I was driving grass cutting machinery, that you couldn't use effectively on wet grass - and they had enough of their own full-time staff that they paid to drink tea in huts.

Didn't help us much though, when your pay was two days light at the end of the week. The stupid thing is, the council will have been paying such a high rate to the agency for each day of our time, that it would definitely have been cheaper for them to pay us for 5 days, than the agency for 3...

Did the council pay you when you were sick, did they provide holiday pay for you, who contributed towards your pension. There's much more to what constitutes pay than money in your pocket at the end of the week. I would have thought the council had rather a good deal being able to stand you down on the day.

 

[Hamilton]

This was presumably in that period of time when the requirement for time served to be able to claim employment rights was 1 Year, rather than the prior and subsequent period being 2 years?

Employers exploiting the law to dismiss folk one day before they gain increased rights is as low as it gets. Sure, business is tough sometimes and, imo, employers need to be able to have the ability to flex their workforce; but this ability should come with some considerable pain (and moral reflection).

Personally, I don’t hire anyone unless I am 100% certain that I can employ them for a minimum of 9 months. I’d like to say that that period was, say, 3 years, but I just don’t have anything like that amount of visibility of revenue. If I can’t see 9 months of increased revenue with 100% certainty, I use temps - preferring to take a margin hit, rather than potentially jerk someone’s (and their family’s) life around.

This last point is so important. It is - in my view - the ethical responsibility of the employer to take on people without putting their lives at risk. I learned this lesson painfully about 12 years ago when I had to let an employee go after 6 months due to a crash in one part of the company. I'd anticipated more work and we just did not deliver. It was one of the most painful decisions I have ever made and I was mortified when giving the news. This person had left a secure job to join us. It's stayed with me forever and I've vowed to never ever put someone in that position again.

 

[Goldstone1976]

This last point is so important. It is - in my view - the ethical responsibility of the employer to take on people without putting their lives at risk. I learned this lesson painfully about 12 years ago when I had to let an employee go after 6 months due to a crash in one part of the company. I'd anticipated more work and we just did not deliver. It was one of the most painful decisions I have ever made and I was mortified when giving the news. This person had left a secure job to join us. It's stayed with me forever and I've vowed to never ever put someone in that position again.

Yep - absolutely. I put in place the policy I describe for exactly the same reason as you elucidate. Employers have a responsibility to grow, and therefore provide employment, and at the same time only employ that number that they can continue to employ. Getting the balance right is very hard.

I’ve never regretted dismissing an employee - it’s nearly always been their fault. I deeply regret having made people redundant - it’s nearly always been my fault.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

They help some people but not others. Should be lots of rules about which jobs can do them and also should only be for a certain length of time. Even if that means companies are idiotic enough to give up trained staff.

They do have a time and place though.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Employers exploiting the law to dismiss folk one day before they gain increased rights is as low as it gets.

Agreed. As I've already mentioned I've been made redundant a number of times. Two of them, while awful, I understood. The companies needed to make savings due to lack of growth and both times, being in the higher pay brackets, put me at risk. In both I was well over the 2 year period. The last though I was 2 weeks short of two years and a substantial bonus. That really ground with me ( and still does ). Admittedly it wasn't helped by one of the directors being jailed for bribery and corruption but the timing absolutely stank - especially as Mrs W who also worked for the company was also made redundant on the same day.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Agreed. As I've already mentioned I've been made redundant a number of times. Two of them, while awful, I understood. The companies needed to make savings due to lack of growth and both times, being in the higher pay brackets, put me at risk. In both I was well over the 2 year period. The last though I was 2 weeks short of two years and a substantial bonus. That really ground with me ( and still does ). Admittedly it wasn't helped by one of the directors being jailed for bribery and corruption but the timing absolutely stank - especially as Mrs W who also worked for the company was also made redundant on the same day.

You have my sympathy. Totally unacceptable behaviour by the employer - just no integrity whatsoever.

 

[BensGrandad]

As has been shown by the number of contributors to this thread it is not a black and white issue perhaps that is why government ministers in a much higher position than me are paid to make these decisions.

 

[dazzer6666]

As has been shown by the number of contributors to this thread it is not a black and white issue perhaps that is why government ministers in a much higher position than me are paid to make these decisions.

Your opening line was quite black and white to be honest.

 

[BensGrandad]

Your opening line was quite black and white to be honest.

That was and is my view but others have different views so the issue isnt black and white.

 

[LamieRobertson]

That was and is my view but others have different views so the issue isnt black and white.

Grey and cream?

 

[sams dad]

Sub- contractors in the construction industry have been operating zero hours contracts for many years. When I started working on building sites in the 1970’s, it was known as “ being on the Lump”, people were hired and fired as work dictated and it was accepted as the norm. No guaranteed hours,sent home without pay when the weather was bad, no sickness or holiday pay, but we survived by working all the hours we could when the work was there. I haven’t worked for a sub-contractor for many years, but I suspect the system is largely unchanged despite the Inland Revenue’s efforts to get all operatives on PAYE.

 

[darkwolf666]

Keep looking for a better job. That's what you're supposed to do on jobseekers anyway.

Are you related to Norman Tebbit?

 

[clapham_gull]

Your opening line was quite black and white to be honest. [emoji23][emoji23]

That how you start a debate and he has generated one.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

That how you start a debate and he has generated one.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

Yep - absolutely. I put in place the policy I describe for exactly the same reason as you elucidate. Employers have a responsibility to grow, and therefore provide employment, and at the same time only employ that number that they can continue to employ. Getting the balance right is very hard.

I’ve never regretted dismissing an employee - it’s nearly always been their fault. I deeply regret having made people redundant - it’s nearly always been my fault.

Good man.

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk