Iain Duncan Smith

Justice · Apr 17, 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...acts-is-to-rebrand-them-say-iain-duncan-smith

It's a disgrace that this man is getting paid by the public the man is tool.

wigman · Apr 17, 2015

Justice said:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...acts-is-to-rebrand-them-say-iain-duncan-smith

It's a disgrace that this man is getting paid by the public the man is a utter tool.

The man is a dinosaur and totally out of touch with the modern world.

Steve.S · Apr 17, 2015

Just do not see how zero hours contracts help anyone. Yes if people want to work part time, then give them the hours that they want to work. My wife wants to work for 12 hours a week and that is what her contract is for. Guaranteed 12 hours. Companies can now employ 3 or 4 people for one job and pick out of those people who they want to do the job on a day to day basis. If you are ill, then you lose out and are unlikely to be given much work, meaning companies do not have to pay sick pay or much holiday pay. Back to Victorian times.

clippedgull · Apr 17, 2015

His scouse side kick is just as poisionous

Esther McVey, the employment minister, has previously tried to rename zero-hours contracts as “enabling-hours contracts”.

Brighton Mod · Apr 17, 2015

This type of agreement is the modern world providing many with an income that suites their life style. If they didn't want this type of arrangement they wouldn't opt for it. Also they are not compelled to attend if they don't wish. Its a non issue, a distraction and here to stay.

beorhthelm · Apr 17, 2015

its odd how someone says something obvious and because of who it is, its wrong. fact is that this is about perceptions and the name "zero-hours contract" has become toxic, when its been around decades and a form of employment used by many, including those apparently now against it (comically including Labour MPs and unions).

on the subject of facts:
On average, someone on a “zero-hours contract” usually works 25 hours a week.
1/3 people on “zero-hours contracts” want more hours; 2/3 are content with their hours.

so why the insistance that this form of employment is so awful and must be banned? (except for the first 12 weeks, its apparently fine for a few months)

seagullwedgee · Apr 17, 2015

Only one in fifty are zero hours contract jobs.

Let's talk about the other 49 jobs FFS.

Prince Monolulu · Apr 17, 2015

seagullwedgee said:
Only one in fifty are zero hours contract jobs.

Let's talk about the other 49 jobs FFS.

Easy to say if you're not the '1'

RexCathedra · Apr 17, 2015

Steve.S said:
Back to Victorian times.

Ah, but think of all of the freedom!

beorhthelm · Apr 17, 2015

Steve.S said:
... Companies can now employ 3 or 4 people for one job and pick out of those people who they want to do the job on a day to day basis. If you are ill, then you lose out and are unlikely to be given much work, meaning companies do not have to pay sick pay or much holiday pay. Back to Victorian times.

now? when did this change? oh, thats right its the same as it ever was. used to be called agency work, and im very suspicious that alot of the reported increase in zero hours is from changes to agency employement rules, causing a shift from agency to direct employment.

Lincoln Imp · Apr 17, 2015

seagullwedgee said:
Only one in fifty are zero hours contract jobs.

Let's talk about the other 49 jobs FFS.

All right, let's. I've been a freelance for 26 years. How do politicians intend to legislate against the continuation of this form of 'employment', which is almost always run on a zero hours basis because it wouldn't work any other way?

Winker · Apr 17, 2015

Let's not forget that the low-wage economy was started by the last Labour government when they opened the floodgates to cheap labour from eastern europe. Employers can offer anything they like and there will always be someone to take the job.

Prince Monolulu · Apr 17, 2015

I tell ya, Leanne won't take any of this nonsense

Yoda · Apr 17, 2015

beorhthelm said:
now? when did this change? oh, thats right its the same as it ever was. used to be called agency work, and im very suspicious that alot of the reported increase in zero hours is from changes to agency employement rules, causing a shift from agency to direct employment.

The only difference with agency work is (with the one's I've worked with), that you get at least a few days to a weeks notice of the work AND it's agreed fixed hours (well, all the agency staff we've had on my department at least) and they get at least a weeks notice of when they will no longer required (unless they are not doing the job required).

Doc Lynam · Apr 17, 2015

Zero hour contracts aren't a contract, there for exploitative employers.

seagullsovergrimsby · Apr 17, 2015

seagullwedgee said:
Only one in fifty are zero hours contract jobs.

Let's talk about the other 49 jobs FFS.

During the summer this figure becomes nearly 3 in 50. Source : ONS 1.8M workers on ZHC in August 2014.

severnside gull · Apr 17, 2015

seagullsovergrimsby said:
During the summer this figure becomes nearly 3 in 50. Source : ONS 1.8M workers on ZHC in August 2014.

1:50 or 3:50 matters little. It is the essential premise that abuse of the individual, any individual, is socially acceptable that represents the fundamental ethos of the current government.

beorhthelm · Apr 17, 2015

seagullsovergrimsby said:
During the summer this figure becomes nearly 3 in 50. Source : ONS 1.8M workers on ZHC in August 2014.

now why do you think this might be?

seagullsovergrimsby · Apr 17, 2015

Yoda said:
The only difference with agency work is (with the one's I've worked with), that you get at least a few days to a weeks notice of the work AND it's agreed fixed hours (well, all the agency staff we've had on my department at least) and they get at least a weeks notice of when they will no longer required (unless they are not doing the job required).

I've done agency work where they say you'll be working 39 hours a week. The reality is the number of hours is not guaranteed. I lost count of the number of times spending 45 minutes on a bus then walking 10 minutes to a factory , changing into workgear and then lining up waiting for a supervisor to pick you out to work on a production line. If there was not enough work orders or the agency sent too many staff in I would then be sent home. The agency sometimes had the decency to phone up a couple of hours before my shift was due to start to say the factory didn't need any non-permanent workers for that day. The agency got away with it by saying they were only an "introducer" to their client so in effect I was on a zero hours contract.

seagullsovergrimsby · Apr 17, 2015

beorhthelm said:
now why do you think this might be?

More casual seasonal jobs :thumbsup:

I was just making the point that the number of workers on ZHC varies wildly throughout the year and the 697k figure which is often bandied about is from February whereas the figure from last August is barely mentioned.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Iain Duncan Smith

Dangerous Idiot

Well-known member

Well-known member

Hotdogs, extra onions

Its All Too Beautiful

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Everything in Moderation

Aurea Mediocritas

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

CUM ON FEEL THE NOIZE

Everything in Moderation

English & European

I hate the Daily Mail

#cpfctinpotclub

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

#cpfctinpotclub

#cpfctinpotclub

Share this page