Search results

What savers got hit then ?

Just as long as that minimum number of hours is zero if the employee decides so then we're in agreement.

Given the calls to ban them and Bold Seagull's posts ( and yes I know, he hasn't said ban them ) I'd suggest they clearly aren't simple enough ! I'm not sure how difficult it is for people to understand that they do and can work .... in the right circumstance. Only an idiot would call for an...

Then it is that type of ZHC that needs to be altered. I've not experienced that type but those I did sign with hotels etc ( and we're talking well known places like the Royal Albion and The Metropole ) work extremely well for me. It's very over simplistic for people to start shouting 'ban then...

But that isn't how they all work ..... some are beneficial to both parties.

So you've never actually had a ZHC then !

So your bar jobs required you to work at least a minimum number of hours each week / month ?

If I hadn't had experience of it then yes it might be fanciful. But I have experienced it and I still have many friends in the hospitality industry who use these types of contracts quite happily ( and willingly ).

I can assure that in hospitality that option does exist - in nearly every hotel and bar in this city. I just object to the daft notion that if something is considered bad by SOME people that the automatic response is "Ban it". No, alter it, put in safe guards. Banning is generally the first call...

But surely the flexibility is a good thing .... work when you like to a certain extent. Some months I worked hundreds of hours ( Poly holidays for example ) and other months not at all ( exam time ). If I'd had a contract with minimum hours I couldn't have done that.

But you can turn that around as well, some people ( and yes I will use my student days as an example ) want a ZHC because it doesn't tie them to working a minimum number of hours - they can say no. When I was studying I didn't want to be tied to doing at least a minimum number of hours - some...

Licences don't work ( you only need to see how easy it is to circumvent B&H's licence rules ) and by limiting the number of licences you would limit supply thus pushing up rents.

And therein lies the problem - people see the phrase "zero hours contract" and assume what it means. Many of these contracts don't tie people down to a single employer ( I agree some do though ) and by banning all zero hours contracts you would prevent those people, like me at the time, that...

Errrr .... at the time .... me. I was registered to a number of hotels and they rang me when they needed someone to work. Sometimes I said yes and sometimes I said no - perfect. No guarantee of any hours each week but it worked for me and them. Sorry to burst your bubble that they don't work though.

Oh yes, agreed, there are some conditions and I know plenty of people won't have £200 just lying around each month but a 25% bonus is very generous. So after 5 years you'd still have less than £15k so anyone hoping to buy a place in the next 10 years is still going to have to save more than £200...

I'd suggest that one of the biggest bonuses and probably most expensive policies was actually targeted at the younger generations .... namely the 1st Time Buyer ISA.

I'm a little surprised that more on here haven't pointed out the new 'Diverted Profits Tax' - a small but good step in the right direction IMHO.

That's OK then .... the state owns all tax returns so I'll be popping along to the Treasurey later to pick up a few quid ... after all it's my money.

And what about those people who actually like to work under a zero hours contract ( as I did as a student ) ? Put some safeguards in by all means but ban them ? No.

He doesn't even own that .... the state does.